Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karate Do Association of Bengal

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2023 November 26.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karate Do Association of Bengal[edit]

[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)

Non of the sources given show notability, the TimesOfIndia and Zee24Ghanta articles are all press releases and IndiaBlooms and GetBengal are just generally considered very very unreliable sources. A BEFORE search does not bring up anything new. Sohom (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing significant independent coverage of this organization. There are sources describing karate events they're sponsoring, but that's what karate orgs do. There are some sources talking about awards given the organization's president, but that's not significant coverage of the organization. Articles about a 6 year old black belt don't make the org WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found this title notable as it has enough good references on trusted websites. This is the notable karate organisation of Bengal.Arnoldwera (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find significant independent coverage of the subject. Lethweimaster (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This profile is of a Karate organization which doesn't seems promotional and is notable to be on wikipedia. This is also affiliated to Karate India Organisation. Ramrathore1 (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the first AfD for both of the keep voters and they've both made about 20 edits apiece. I would suggest that these editors take a look at WP:NOT. Not being promotional does not guarantee WP notability nor do passing mentions, even from reliable sources. WP notability is also not inherited WP:NOTINHERITED from other people or organizations and is not obtained by simply claiming notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources don't really discuss anything unusual about the KAB; most of the news is about its president becoming an A-class referee or on their younger classes (which do not affect KAB's notability a whit) and about their online "E-kata" courses and competitions (which barely says anything about it, being laser-focused on the courses). Ramrathorel and Arnoldwera's "Keep" arguments are also noticeably flimsy WP:ILIKEIT arguments with no basis in policy or anything much that's defensible.

Another thing I have to note is that most of the citations are to Times of India, an outlet we consider to be pretty dodgy at best, and so I am generally inclined to lend those sources far less weight from a notability standpoint. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 20:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I found numerous news articles from reliable website which passes WP:BASIC. On the basis of WP:THREE. Katy Williamson (talk) 11:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Care to link them? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 15:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Katy Williamson Although WP:THREE is an essay, not a policy, many agree with it. However, it helps if you actually specify the three sources you claim show notability. Thank you. Papaursa (talk) 02:47, 18 November 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.