Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Braithwaite

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. There seems to be a surprising amount of variation of opinion on how to interpret the guidelines, where I would not have expected anything like so much variation. However, the one thing which is crystal clear is that there is no consensus. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Braithwaite

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

Boxer who fails WP:NBOX. He lost most of his professional fights. He did win a bronze medal at the 1958 Commonwealth games, but he only won 1 fight. I don't think that's enough to show notability. The article also needs improved sources--there's a list of the results from the 1958 Commonwealth games and a local newspaper article on him training fighters. That doesn't seem to be enough to meet WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdtemp (talk • contribs) 15:56, January 25, 2013‎ (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mdtemp (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability guidelines state "Generally acceptable standards for Sports figures are presumed notable (except as noted within a specific section) if they: have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics." He not only competed in the Commonwealth Games, he also won a medal. Unless you want to argue that the Commonwealth games are not a major international competition.FruitMonkey (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can claim the Commonwealth games are on the same level as the Olympics or world championships, especially when someone can medal by winning 1 fight. Papaursa (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to state that an event must be on the same level as the Olympic Games, as apart from the Football World Cup there is nothing in the world on the same level. It states a "major international amateur or professional competition", IMO the Commenwealth Games is a major international competition. Also you can't have a hack at someone for winning a medal by only beating one person. You can only compete against what is put in front of you. There is a long history in competitions as high as the Olympics of teams or people winning medals by just turning up as there were only three entries. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSPORTS says "1.have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics." The Commonwealth games are not the highest level nor does he meet the notability criteria for his sport (which is the seoond of the two criteria). Winning one bout doesn't seem notable (perhaps WP:ONEEVENT?). Now, Malcolm Collins I view differently having won 2 Commonwealth silver medals and several bouts in each games (meets WP:MANOTE).Papaursa (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The above discussion has, at least temporarily, convinced me to vote to delete this article. I had been undecided. I reserve the right to change my vote if I see convincing arguments supporting his notability. Papaursa (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same here, after reading what was written above, as well as below, I believe this should go. Skycycle (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep commonwealth games are certainly notable (notable for WP is notable on wp) and a top-level international sporting games. Despite OSE, I would point out that there are numerous athletes here who have not won a medal and still have pages.Lihaas (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria says nothing about notable, it says "at the highest level". Are the Commonwealth games the highest level an athlete can compete at? Papaursa (talk) 05:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is apparently a contradictoryu criteria as cited abopve. Clearly the two need to be reconciled.

Also see India national basketball team#Roster (and there are more with blue links)Lihaas (talk) 06:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me the contradiction. Which of the two "generally accepted standards" at WP:NSPORTS does he meet? Show me he meets either criteria and I'll happily change my vote. Papaursa (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have already voted above, but what I believe this discussion has brought to light is the vagueness of the term 'major international competition'. I too agree that this fighter does not meet notabilty as a professional boxer, I only create the article as I presumed that the Commonwealth Games were a certified 'major international competition'. Even if this page is keep or delete, the same argument will resurface on a hundred other delete articles. Would it not be better to get the sports WP to decide which events are 'major international' to stop others wasting their time? FruitMonkey (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see ambiguity. The guidleines clearly say "at the highest level". I see only 2 things that would meet that criteria--the Olympics and world championships. I think you'd be hard pressed to find an athlete who would say that the Commonwealth Games is the highest level competition there is. Papaursa (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Weak keep - the article makes clear Braithwaite fought two fights, coming out of the Commonwealth Games with a medal. WP:NSPORTS is quite clear that the Commonwealth Games is considered a major international competition - I don't see why boxers should be treated any differently. My only caveat is that the article suggests there may not have been a strong field in his weight category. He's still making it into the newspapers in his 70's, thereby probably meeting WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said he won 1 fight, he lost in the semifinals. If every boxer who became a trainer was considered notable we'd have thousands of articles just on them--a small article in a local paper is hardly unusual. Where does it say competing in the Commonwealth games automatically confers notability for boxers? Please show me how he meets WP:NSPORTS as a boxer. It's a simple request and it's all I need to change my vote. Papaursa (talk) 05:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended my recommendation to 'weak keep'. WP:NSPORTS is ambivalent, like many WP guidelines. FYI I would consider South Wales a region rather than a locality, for press coverage ;) Sionk (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Commonwealth Games would be a major international competition, even participating should generate notability as a boxer. Sepulwiki (talk) 07:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors at this discussion have claimed that participating at the Commonwealth games is sufficient to show notability. Would one of you please point out a guideline that says that? Papaursa (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So far no one has shown he actually meets WP:NSPORTS. Claims that all Commonwealth athletes are notable are not supported by any policies, nor is the claim that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS persuasive. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Commonwealth Games is a significant enough competition that winning a medal makes someone of encyclopedic interest. He also had a significant professional career, which would have been reported on in newspapers of the era. There are a few news stories on his fights in GNews, e.g. [1], [2], and one which mentions his coaching: [3]. Contrary to the nominator's statement, boxrec states that he only lost 11 of 27 professional fights. We shouldn't have standards for boxers that are more demanding by an order of magnitude than those we have for say footballers and cricketers. --Michig (talk) 07:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about his record. I suspect Mdtemp just looked at the fact that he'd won only 13 of his 27 fights. He certainly doesn't meet WP:NBOX or WP:NSPORTS. The fact that various martial arts might have stricter standards than other sports strikes me as irrelevant. I believe in using the existing criteria instead of creating my own. As for being mentioned in an article on one of the boxers he's training--that's a classic case of a passing mention. Papaursa (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It doesn't say that you have to win most of your fights to be considered notable. It also doesn't say that you have to win a medal at the Olympics to be considered notable. The Commonwealth Games are a MAJOR international competition. The Goodwill Games are also a MAJOR international competition. Just because it's not on the same level as the Olympics is irrelevant. There are many boxers who have a winning record that are not always notable. But the fact this guy won a medal at a major international competition is what makes him notable. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 19:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People keep making their own criteria--WP:NSPORTS doesn't say "major competition", it says "highest level", which the Commonwealth games are not. He also fails WP:NBOX and lacks the signficant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, WP:NSPORTS states that a person must have "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics", you have placed your own interpretation of 'highest level' on this argument. You yourself state that there are only two events that reach this criteria, that of the 'Summer Olympics'? and the World Athletics. Well, this is your interpretation as the guidelines only mention the Olympics. Since when do the World Athletics enter this argument? They don't; by your own interpretation the World Athletics are not notable (because they are not mentioned in WP:NSPORTS). But you believe that high-'est' has wiggle room as you believe that more than one event can be at the top of the tree. High-est is two events, Olympics and World Athletics. ...but the World Athletics is only of interest to athletes, what about the swimmers, power lifters, wrestlers, sailors, table tennis stars, disabled athletes, martial artists, etc. World Athletics means nothing to them. The phrase 'such as' was placed in the argument to include other events, not just your interpretation of what those games should be (personally I would add to the Commonwealth the Paralympics, European, Goodwill and Asian Games as major international events). FruitMonkey (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're misquoting what I wrote--please read what I said, not what you want me to have said. I said "world championships"--I never used the term "world athletics". I would claim swimmers, wrestlers, etc. are athletes but they still need to compete at the highest level--you're trying to change the discussion. To claim he meets WP:NSPORTS, you're saying that the Commonwealth Games are the highest level. However, you say I'm wrong to claim that the world championships are the highest level. I would disagree on both counts. What level is higher than the world championships--the Intergalactic championships? So far not one of the keep votes has given a policy backed argument showing how he's a notable boxer and the logical extension of your aforementioned argument--that the Commonwealth games are of a higher level than the world championships is simply ludicrous. You continue to translate "highest level" as "any major international event" and those two things are clearly not the same. Papaursa (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 12:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does the 'highest level' mean 'only one' organisation? To me, the CG, the Asian Games and others are top level. They are all supra-national. As the policy stands, for me this subject does comply. There may be clarification of 'highest level' needed in a revision to the policy, as to whether it only means the Olympics (the peak of the pile) or a wider group (similar to a percentile classification in an exam). Peridon (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the guidelines were put together with some thought and deliberation, so I believe that the word "highest" was not chosen randomly. Various continental championships may be at a high level, but they're clearly not the "highest". Besides the Olympics, I would include world championships of major organizations as being at "the highest level". Mdtemp (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the history of WP:NSPORTS, it appears that the boxing section was only added in 2011 ([4]), with very little discussion beforehand, and changes since then have been made with little or no discussion, so I would suggest that the guidance there be taken with a large pinch of salt, and should not be given too much weight. 'The highest level' is generally taken as professional sport (we don't require footballers to have played in a World Cup Final) or the highest level of amateur sport where there is no professional version - boxing is slightly different to most as amateur boxing is almost a different form of the sport. Competing in international competition representing one's country is I think considered sufficient in all but the most obscure sports. --Michig (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you're now claiming that anyone who competes in any international event in any sport is automatically notable. That clearly is of a different order of magnitude from pro boxing's requirement that a fighter rank in the world top 10 and is an extreme expansion of the concept that Olympic athletes are notable. I don't think previous discussions support your interpretation. Papaursa (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There seems to be a clear split between those who read the guidelines literally and those, primarily from Commonwealth countries, that view even appearing at the Commonwealth games as notable. I don't see consensus being reached between the two groups. I'll admit I fall more into the literal camp.

Suggestion Things are heating up, and that's not necessarily good, in this discussion and I don't believe either side will convince the other. What about keeping the peace and closing this now as "NO CONSENSUS"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.118.229.17 (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think this nomination would cause so much friction. I still think I'm right, but am willing to end this as a "no consensus". That way I'm not wrong and the article will remain on WP--seems like a win/win.Mdtemp (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2013 (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.