Dilshad Kamaludheen: BWF player profile 4.  "Players of World University Championship 2014"  BadmintonIndia.org"  6. "Achievements"  7. "Lagos International 2015 - Results"  13.  & 14. "12th World University Badminton Championship" 17.  "13th World University Badminton Championship - Individual Event"  20. "Kerala State Level Championships 2014 - 2015"  21. "Air Costa 70th Inter State - Inter Zonal Badminton Championships 2015 at Vijayaw - Results for Rahimtoola Cup for Men" 23.  "34th TKV Memorial All Kerala Senior Ranking Tournament 2018 - Results" 27.  "Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs"  Routine sports news  2. "Dilshad steals the show with easy wins"  3. "Badminton super league off to flying start at India Club" 10.  "All Kerala snooker tourney from July 31" 12.  "Double delight for Setiawan : Gulf Weekly Online"  15. "AIU team still in limbo"  16. "Double for Mahatma Gandhi Varsity in badminton tourney"  18. "Mixed day for Indian shuttlers at Canada Open"  19. "Manu Attri and B.Sumeeth Reddy through to the second round of US Open Grand Prix Gold" 22.  "Air India, PSPB triumph"  24. "Kerala shuttler gets two-year suspension"  25. "KBSA backtracks, lifts N. G. Balasubramannian's two-year suspension"  26. "KBSA temporarily lifts suspension on shuttler NG Balasubramannian" Misleading title, the website doesn't open 8.  "Dilshad: Making good progress" 11.  "Compromise AIU team for Korea"  Unreliable source - "Up18" 9.  "Rising from the Backcourt: The Inspiring Journey of Dilshad, a Kerala Town's Badminton Prodigy"  The most surprising thing is accepting this article which is a clear failure of WP:NBAD and WP:GNG .  The statement under WP:NBAD states "Medalist at the Grand Prix Gold or BWF World Tour" which this player is nowhere near of.  We have been constantly getting articles like Draft:Revati Devasthale for example, which has even won a international event, incomparable to this subject Dilshad and yet the article has not been accepted because the reviewers rightly say that this article doesn't pass the guidelines.  Luckily somehow this article remains an exception, which has not even won an international event, let alone any BWF grand prix or world tour event.  His highest achievement is the "bronze medal" at Lagos which doesn't qualify as podium finish under badminton guidelines and other achievements are far more undeserving of an individual article in wikipedia which are all confined to University or State level competitions.  One more thing, I tagged this article on [July 26 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1167174506 ] with notability concerns.  This player, who has been inactive on the circuit for years, somewhow gets all his bio or coverage, almost a month later (24/August/2023), in an unreliable source - Up18 based in Uttar Pradesh.  What concerns me is if this news agency is paid to write something about this subject, largely unknown, not even close to some low tier players of India competing in International Circuit and winning some series/challenger events.  I request you all to please kindly read about this article and carefully vote because there are already a lot of concerns about this player's notability.  Note of caution to creator User:Syed Sadique Hussain , don't spam like you did in the earlier Afd as it disrupts the flow and for your ease I have covered all the sources you could get for this player.  Thankyou.  zoglophie 06:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Badminton , India ,  and Kerala .  zoglophie 06:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe that User:Zoglophie has some problem with me.  Not only he was rude with me during, the 1st nomination of deletion for this article.  he was also disrespectful against the administrator User:Ritchie333 who gave the no consensus‎ motion for the 1st nomination and started arguing with him as well.  He has clear conflict of interest and doesn't want this article to be in Wikipedia literally.  Here is the archive chat for that - [3] I would also suggest the Wikipedia community to go through the complete chat for the 1st nomination and specially after it was relisted.  With regards to Dilshad he is a bronze medallist in a international event, former team captain of the Indian team, and several of his opponents and teammates have their own articles.  and i would like to point out that he won a national-level university championship for a major country and then a state-level tournament for a jurisdiction which by itself would be comparable to a fairly major country.  Also i would like to point out that Mr Dilshad and his partner where ban by the Kerala badminton Assocation because they complain about the association in media that they were treated unfairly by them which jeopardise Dilshad's career after the controversy.  And in India specially in badminton there are limited amount of players that has achieve medal in international event as compared to the population they have.  so, media does like to hear about people who have a controversial career.  so, news article does pop - up every year.  And who said that this player is inactive huh?  here is this details that he has been playing. .  the last match he played according to the official badminton website was in 2022 in INFOSYS FOUNDATION India International Challenge 2022 - [4] Please, do not add false information in the discussion that he hasn't played in years!  Mr Zoglophile is taking this personally and he is taking the rules too strictly.  i would like to remind him of WP:Ignore all rules policy where the focus of the article should be for improvement and written in an neutral point of view not to implement rule on everything that he sees . .which is exactly what he is doing right now. .  i wrote this article following the rules and guidleines of wikipedia best to my knowledge.  So, what mistake have i done?  ... see in this case - WP:NOTFATRAT should be implemented. .  Wikipedia is an information-based place where things are written in neutral point of view and it should be information based only.  that is how i wrote.  and pls Mr zoglophie... i am not here spamming this place . .  i am justifying mine and other wikipedia communities' point of view.  Syed Sadique Hussain ( talk ) 07:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Discussion moved to talk page zoglophie 07:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just a procedural note, I did close the first AfD as "no consensus", this was raised at deletion review ( Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 June 28#28 June 2023 ) where there was a unanimous consensus from everyone else to endorse the close.  Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Trivial mentions or name drops, nothing found in RS.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nothing in Gnews, only thing I can find are videos of the matches played.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are 27 references about this person in which 2 - 3 have significant coverage about him... pls, note why don't you go through each of the references found in his Wikipedia page right now ... you know that very well right?  that a news article validation doesn't last long sometimes it either becomes archive or it is very difficult to be found due to its ranking getting extremely reduced over time.  this badminton player when he was in his prime was in controversial news about 5 - 6 years ago and in his prime 8 - 10 years ago... now he come to an retirement age so, you wouldn't find much article written about him now since, fame does go away after some time.  Syed Sadique Hussain ( talk ) 15:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have, they are all trivial mentions.  Mr X does YZ is not what we need.  We need articles about the person, being the main topic of article.  What's used here is not helpful.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] comment - I would like to mention that the 8th reference that the nominator has mentioned which he was not able to access (which i don't know why because it was accessible from the very beginning) has significant coverage of the badminton player - Rayan, Stan (2009).  "Dilshad: Making good progress" (PDF).  The Hindu.  p. 1.  and it is a reliable source since it was published in the Hindu newspaper.  additionally, i am attaching the link as well- https://www.udrop.com/KJzn/Dilshad_making_good_progress.pdf? download_token=aa5d49e6d05bf4e4ce85e67eb68cd3719f07553b48d32ac45ab91524c11594fc it can be access directly from the link.  Additionally, i checked WP:RS/P with regards to up 18 news and it is  no where mentioned that it is an unreliable source as a matter of fact the article has significant coverage of the player that details about alot of other things ... only a smaller part of it is mentioned in Wikipedia and even if the article doesn't exist still there are multiple secondary and tertiary source that act as evidence which are to prove what is written in Wikipedia about this person ... so, on what basis the nominator is calling it unreliable is controversial.  before he accuse me of socketpupptary and now he is accusing of this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed Sadique Hussain ( talk • contribs ) 15:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the AFD 3 months ago; not much has changed since then, leaving it as no consensus should have been fine.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 18:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The nominator was told in the DRV here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_June_28 to WP:DROPTHESTICK .  This behavior is kind of disagreeable in my opinion.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 19:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] his old Afd vote: he is a medalist, former team captain, and several of his opponents and teammates have their own articles.  Sufficiently notable and with good ref coverage.  Just to remind everyone else that this user claims to be an inclusionist in his user page, which may affect their rational decision making and possibly disrupting the consensus building.  We should be mindful of users who are here only to halt the process of deleting articles unworthy to Encyclopedia's standards.  zoglophie 19:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I do not really have any personal dispute with you really, but inclusionism does not seem against encyclopedia development.  Rather, there was no real need to relitigate after your previous AFD from June and the following DRV where there was consensus to endorse the outcome.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 23:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] User:Indefensible , we are not talking in personal terms here, atleast I'm not interested.  But there was no consensus before and large part or it was responsible for the discussion already happened which prompted the admin to close the Afd.  Just so you know, I can always relitigate the Afd afterwards.  Your vote before was also not policy based, you were silent on the question I raised in previous Afd.  Your vote here too is also dubious which is where Inclusionism - practice of saving unworthy articles comes in play.  Thankyou.  zoglophie 04:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What should be included or not is largely subjective opinion depending on both the interpretation of policy and the development of policy itself.  If you characterize all of inclusionism as contrary to "rational decision making," that is a strawman argument which is stupid frankly.  Also you said that I did not understand policies such as WP:GNG , however that is ad hominem and purely your subjective opinion.  It was not worth responding to.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 05:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Zoglophie , there is nothing wrong with having inclusionistic leanings just like there is nothing preferable and virtuous about tending towards deletionism.  It depends on the article and the sourcing.  Please do not attack editors again like you did during this AFD, it is incivil and will result in a block next time.  There is no reason to get so worked up about having a difference of opinion with another editor, it happens on a daily basis here and while you don't have to agree you have to respect other editors.  I'm so disappointed that I'll leave this AFD for another closer to handle.  L iz Read!  Talk!  07:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All those points are fine and dandy, but we need articles about the person, not just listings in a database or a few lines in an article about something else.  We can have articles on anything under the sun, from tiktok memes to food dishes to WW2 extermination camps to serial killers, but they all must have extensive sourcing about the "thing".  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete  1) per GNG: there is no significant coverage article about the person.  per nom all the sources came from database and only a trivial mention.  2) per WP:NBAD clearly state tht notability for badminton players if they had a podium finish at tournaments of the BWF Grand Prix Gold and Grand Prix (until 2017) or the BWF World Tour or Super 100 level (from 2018 onwards).  And fyi, the international tournament won by Dilshad Kamaludheen is a lower grade in badminton tournament (see the example of badminton tournament structure here--> 2023 BWF season , the Lagos International not a part of BWF Grand Prix Gold and Grand Prix or BWF World Tour. 3) still in WP:NBAD: there are only the winner and the runner-up who step on the podium in BWF Grand Prix Gold and Grand Prix (until 2017) or the BWF World Tour or Super 100 level (from 2018 onwards).  So, how come the semi-finalists in the lower grade of badminton tournament meets the notability.  4) Never enter top 100 in the Badminton World Federation ranking.  5) Never competed in the BWF World Championships.  6) Never won the Indian National Badminton Championships .  I hope User:Timothytyy can help and explain more about this. .  Thanks Stvbastian ( talk ) 16:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete Syed Sadique Hussain Sorry but under the current situation the article doesn't pass GNG and SNG.  Even if you think the player has remarkable achievements, notability is based on SIGCOV and not how good are the subject's achievements.  The reason I put "weak" is because we have difficulty in accessing and assessing the source, but after all, we cannot postpone a discussion just because of a single source.  If you believe that you can find more reliable sources that provides independent SIGCOV to the subject, feel free to request draftification here or create a userpage with the same content and we will support you to develop a guideline-passing article.  Regarding the nom, I admit that the user should have assumed good faith for all editors, including the ones who opposes the user's views but did not violate any conduct policies.  The user has insisted on not dropping the stick , which may be considered as disruptive editing if the user fails to understand that there has been strong consensus on endorsing the first nomination's result.  On the other hand, Indefensible should not have used a previous AfD/DRV outcome as an elaboration for a keep vote; after all, no consensus doesn't theoretically mean that it passes the guidelines, and consesnsus can change .  I personally had some conflicts with the nominator quite a long time ago, but you should try to understand the user's stance, and that the user is just trying to do his job by nominating an article for deletion which fails GNG and SNG.  I understand the nom's frustration that the article is still not deleted for a long time since his first nomination, but the nom should not have been that harsh anyway, so apologies for the user's irritating behavior towards you.  Timothytyy ( talk ) 00:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My vote is the same as in the previous AFD, that is why I referred to it rather than making the same argument twice from 3 months ago which is hardly "a long time" ago.  However I respect your response.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 04:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Please focus on source content and not history with editors to help establish consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - fairly low ranked player, passing references in RS. I'm not seeing much suggesting he is notable other than the banning/unbanning thing, which seems to me to be a single news event.  JMWt ( talk ) 16:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Have already ! voted, but the sourcing used just isn't acceptable for notability.  Some of it is scant mentions, others a few lines.  None of which is helpful, without other substantial articles about the individual.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment this is now semi'ed to stop the disruption.  My only prior admin action was a relist, so I don't think this is an issue.  Star Mississippi 13:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per source eval above and BEFORE that showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth .  // Timothy :: talk 19:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 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.

Discussion outcome: delete