Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nur Mohd Azriyn Ayub


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Nur Mohd Azriyn Ayub

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This player has not won any major tournaments and is not ranked anywhere near the top of his game. The only sources are two listings sites, both run by the same organisation. This fails WP:NOTDIR.

Over the past months there has been a rash of creations of article on players like this, with absolutely no provable claim to meting WP:GNG. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep -This player meet WP:NBADMINTON #3 --Stvbastian (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * That's an essay. Wikipedia has well-defined inclusion standards that enjoy widespread consensus, these are set out at WP:GNG. We require reliable independent sources. We require these because - especialyl for living individuals - we have to be able to verify that all information is neutral. If your subject-specific essay says that someone this far down the world rankings, with one second place in one of a large number of similar tournaments of only marginal importance, is automatically notable as a result, then your essay is wrong. Guy (Help!) 01:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NBADMINTON appears to be a notability guideline; to call it an essay merely undercuts your own argument, JzG ... not least, we can all click on the link and find that you are misrepresenting the status of the page in an apparent attempt to bolster your delete argument. The subject, meeting #3 of what appears to be the community norm, I'm bound to !vote keep --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , the concerned player doesn't meet WP:NBADMINTON #3. That's because the highest level international events of Thailand's are Thailand Open & Thailand Masters, both of which are Grand Prix Gold events. The above player reached to the final of Smiling Fish International, which is graded as International Challenge. In fact, the Smiling Fish is Thailand's lowest level/graded international event. BTW, you can check the relevant gradings/levels here. Having said that, I guess the above player meets #5, as he has won a doubles title in his country's national championships, and Malaysia regularly sends athletes to the Olympics.
 * PS: I concur with . The badminton's notability criteria is lax. But that should be discussed at the WP:BADMINTON's talk page. In fact, I've just started a relevant thread there. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, and I agree to NitinMlk, that the criteria must be changed especially for the top countries having more than one top tournament in the ciruit. The mentioned tournament here is at least comparable to the highest European tournaments in Slovakia, Czech, Belgium or in Africa like Kenya, Mauritius, South Africa. --Florentyna (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * From WP:BLP - An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Here we have 3 independent sources (references 3 to 5), plus . At least the 2 gold medals at the 2013 Islamic Solidarity Games are generating in my eyes the notability of the player - so again: Keep. --Florentyna (talk) 09:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 23:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  02:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.