| Revision as of 15:42, 10 August 2020 editJohnpacklambert (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers603,902 edits →Zachary Wohlman← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:14, 12 August 2020 edit undoHuntGroup (talk | contribs)218 edits →Zachary WohlmanNext edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| ::: Mm, you're reading NTEMP exactly backwards: notability is not transitory. I agree that the subject has, so far, proven unimportant as a boxer, but the GNG doesn't take that into consideration. What all the NSPORTS subordinate guidelines do is establish that someone who meets them is very likely to be able to meet the GNG. That our sports-mad culture places inordinate importance on covering athletes is regrettable, but the GNG doesn't have an opt-out clause for athletes. ] 14:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC) | ::: Mm, you're reading NTEMP exactly backwards: notability is not transitory. I agree that the subject has, so far, proven unimportant as a boxer, but the GNG doesn't take that into consideration. What all the NSPORTS subordinate guidelines do is establish that someone who meets them is very likely to be able to meet the GNG. That our sports-mad culture places inordinate importance on covering athletes is regrettable, but the GNG doesn't have an opt-out clause for athletes. ] 14:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC) | ||
| ::::I understand what the specific notability guidelines are for, but in instances like this they can be reasonably used to gauge if an article is worthy of inclusion. As significant coverage only "{{tq|creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article}}", I feel further discussion on why this individual merits an article is necessary. Yes, he has significant coverage, but ''why'' should he have an article? What has he actually done? What is he notable for? What are his achievements? If the answers are "Because he has significant coverage", "he was a professional boxer", "nothing", and "absolutely nothing", then I feel the article should be deleted. – ].].] 14:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC) | ::::I understand what the specific notability guidelines are for, but in instances like this they can be reasonably used to gauge if an article is worthy of inclusion. As significant coverage only "{{tq|creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article}}", I feel further discussion on why this individual merits an article is necessary. Yes, he has significant coverage, but ''why'' should he have an article? What has he actually done? What is he notable for? What are his achievements? If the answers are "Because he has significant coverage", "he was a professional boxer", "nothing", and "absolutely nothing", then I feel the article should be deleted. – ].].] 14:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''': passes GNG. --] (]) 12:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:14, 12 August 2020
Zachary Wohlman
New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- How to contribute
- Introduction to deletion process
- Guide to deletion (glossary)
- Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
- Zachary Wohlman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Has some significant coverage for GNG, however, notability is presumed, not guaranteed. Fails WP:ANYBIO/WP:NBOX; highest achievement in his career was a state level Golden Gloves championship. – .O. 22:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Just to clarify; I'm not saying NBOX and ANYBIO should be used to override GNG, I'm saying they are logical criteria to question the inclusion of the article as significant coverage does not guarantee notability. – .O. 15:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. .O. 22:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. .O. 22:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. .O. 22:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: Whether the subject meets NBOX or ANYBIO is irrelevant; that he meets the GNG (to which both those criterions are subordinate), with coverage beyond routine sports coverage, is. The article's certainly overpromotional, but that's a content issue. Ravenswing 11:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ravenswing: GNG is not necessarily a reason to keep an article though, and I don't think NBOX and ANYBIO are irrelevant in cases like this; the specific criteria can help determine if a subject is actually notable within their field, which this one is not, regardless of the significant coverage.
""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article.
"- What makes this non-notable boxer merit his own article? Because he's had significant coverage? If we had articles on every person who has had significant coverage (especially boxers; prospects – which Wohlman was once upon a time – receive significant coverage early on but often go on to achieve nothing in the sport, as is the case for Wohlman, thereby making him a non-notable boxer) then Misplaced Pages would be filled with every Tom, Dick, and Harry who have had a few articles written about them.
- This is where NBOX can help to determine if he actually merits his own article; has not competed, as an amateur, in the finals of a national tournament or represented his country internationally. As a professional, never won or challenged for any title and has never been ranked in the top ten of any major sanctioning body. Non-notable boxer that received coverage due to the fact he was picked out as a hot prospect by Freddie Roach.
- "
Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful.
" - My main basis for this nomination is WP:NTEMP; he may have been considered notable at the time the article was created in 2011, but as time has passed his lack of actual notability has become apparent. – .O. 12:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Mm, you're reading NTEMP exactly backwards: notability is not transitory. I agree that the subject has, so far, proven unimportant as a boxer, but the GNG doesn't take that into consideration. What all the NSPORTS subordinate guidelines do is establish that someone who meets them is very likely to be able to meet the GNG. That our sports-mad culture places inordinate importance on covering athletes is regrettable, but the GNG doesn't have an opt-out clause for athletes. Ravenswing 14:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- I understand what the specific notability guidelines are for, but in instances like this they can be reasonably used to gauge if an article is worthy of inclusion. As significant coverage only "
creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article
", I feel further discussion on why this individual merits an article is necessary. Yes, he has significant coverage, but why should he have an article? What has he actually done? What is he notable for? What are his achievements? If the answers are "Because he has significant coverage", "he was a professional boxer", "nothing", and "absolutely nothing", then I feel the article should be deleted. – .O. 14:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- I understand what the specific notability guidelines are for, but in instances like this they can be reasonably used to gauge if an article is worthy of inclusion. As significant coverage only "
- Mm, you're reading NTEMP exactly backwards: notability is not transitory. I agree that the subject has, so far, proven unimportant as a boxer, but the GNG doesn't take that into consideration. What all the NSPORTS subordinate guidelines do is establish that someone who meets them is very likely to be able to meet the GNG. That our sports-mad culture places inordinate importance on covering athletes is regrettable, but the GNG doesn't have an opt-out clause for athletes. Ravenswing 14:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: passes GNG. --HuntGroup (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)