Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rupayan City Cumilla

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. I'm closing this discussion as No consensus because, amidst all of the commentary here, I don't see a "rough consensus" on what should happen to this article. If the nominator is still seeking deletion, I suggest a fresh AFD with a better focus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rupayan City Cumilla

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

meets WP:G3, Needs to be deleted to pretend vandalism M.parvage (talk) 08:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. M.parvage (talk) 08:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
whats wrong with the article? FNH004 (talk) 08:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @M.parvage: This isn't vandalism, nor have you presented any evidence that the subject is fake. In fact, I can find a source pretty easily [1] that shows this exists. Could you explain yourself? JML1148 (talk | contribs) 08:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look on the sources @JML1148

Source: 1. From facebook video, No mention for Rupayan City Cumilla

Source: 2, Source: 3 & Source: 5 No mention for Rupayan City Cumilla, except Rupayan Group

Source: 4 Nothing is mentioned about Rupayan City Cumilla & not even Rupayan Group

Source: 6 & Source: 7 Metioned the team name is Rupayan Group Cumilla, not Rupayan City Cumilla

These refers pure vandalism. M.parvage (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody else previously moved the page from Rupayan Group Cumilla to Rupayan City Cumilla, and as the source I linked displays, this topic exists, and isn't vandalism. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 08:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism doesn't refers to the name only. It refers to the content also. Read Wikipedia:Vandalism and then also read the page. This page is also doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV M.parvage (talk) 09:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
M.parvage, it's probably best to focus on what you think needs doing with the article, rather than labelling the quality of the editing. Are you stating that the article is entirely based on trivial references and therefore should be deleted on grounds of no notability, or are you stating that the sources refer to the subject by a different name, and therefore the move (spotted by JML1148 was incorrect and the article should be moved back? Elemimele (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt that some links refer to Rupayan City Cumilla, whereas elsewhere on the internet, it is Rupayan Group Cumilla. Nevertheless, it is difficult to determine the original name as it has no significant coverage.WP:SIGCOV

As for Vandalism, much of this article is fictional (example: Head coach), which also counts as advertising.WP:IBA

Hope you understand @Elemimele. Thanks M.parvage (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Elemimele may or may not understand, but I don't. I have not looked into whether this article should be kept or deleted, but it is certainly not vandalism. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know whether Wikipedia needs an article on this topic or not, but I join the chorus in saying that the nominator's deletion rationale makes no sense. I assume they meant "prevent" rather than "pretend" vandalism. But this plainly isn't vandalism or a pure hoax, which is why their speedy deletion request was declined. The topic isn't fictional or pure advertising. Any such element in the article can be dealt with through normal editing. The nominator is advised to withdraw the nomination. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce: Although the nomination rationale makes no sense, they do make a good comment that it doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. I couldn't find anything that met SIGCOV for either team name mentioned above. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 08:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there's been some communication issues in the nomination which propose WP:G3 without proper basis, further arguments presented in discussion do essentially allege that notability guidelines are not met, which is a valid rationale for an AfD nomination. Further discussion should focus on the quality and availability of sources, rather than whether there is any vandalism afoot.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Do we have a notability guideline for hockey teams?Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of discussion about whether or not this subject is a hoax but we need opinion on what should happen with this article. For those of you who participated in this debate, could you please make your "vote" known?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on above discussion there are possibly major issues. However this seems to be a member team of a new professional sports league. There are match reports for this team out there, eg [2]. Many Bangladeshi sources have covered them, but I am not equipped to evaluate them. I can't find any resources on reliability. I guess it feels counterproductive to delete, but it's hard to recommend keeping. Maybe it's just WP:TOOSOON. —siro χ o 07:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 01:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I sincerely apologize for my misunderstanding regarding vandalism. But I would recommend to delete now also. Actually this topic has no significant coverage and unfortunately, it didn't meet the criteria for being a stand alone article.~PARVAGE ^talk! 06:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

are these references not enough :1, 2, 3, 4???? FNH004 (talk) 09:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FNH004: I've gone through eache references. I understand, these references are enough to prove that, this is not a hoax. But not presenting any notability. PARVAGE ^talk! 19:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The justification to delete (vandalism) is flawed. We default towards keeping WP:ATD and so the absence of a logical deletion rationale leaves me arguing for keep. CT55555(talk) 01:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm trying to figure out if this is a vandalistic hoax as the nominator has alleged. I note that the 3 primary editors are prolific contributors: FNH004 (creator) - 14686 edits but also a 2021 sockpuppeting block, Jit Saha255 (1067 edits), and 103.138.145.249 (219 edits), a likely static IP [3]. FNH004 has created 106 articles only one of which has been deleted. Conclusion: not a hoax. I need to investigate further as to whether it's notable. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I admitted that, this is not a hoax. And also I raised my concern about notability. Thanks PARVAGE ^talk! 19:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops -- I didn't see that.

A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:30, 8 July 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.