Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australian middleweight boxing champions

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2016 June 25.
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 keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian middleweight boxing champions

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

Majority are redlinks. I am also nominating the following page because of the same reasons:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think the idea of the article needs to be on Wiki, however this clearly needs allot of work before I could vote for keep --Bennyaha (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Normally this article is useful but needs work is not a reason for deletion but enough time has passed without any improvement that I doubt there is the interest. If these Lists are kept they would have to be reduced to blue links as per WP:LINKS which makes it even harder to see the notability. The original editor has been notified and he is active. I would change my vote if there was even a hint that this would grow to its potential but right now I just don't see the notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a consensus here to delete, but only the main article is mentioned in those comments. Relisting so that people can comment on the other two articles nominated. MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The articles are in a poor state but the redlinks indicate articles that should be created - our coverage of boxers pre-1980s is poor. This is a topic that has been covered in reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 06:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yes, the two articles are in a poor state and I can understand Peter Rehse's logic that after a long time with little improvement, there is little interest in the subject. But it would only take one person who is knowledgeable on the subject to come along and see something that they can and want to fix. Deleting the article would remove that opportunity. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems like these two topics should be notable, but right now there's no significant independent coverage from reliable sources. The articles consist of a list of names, with no supporting evidence of notability or other facts. Perhaps they can be moved to user space until someone makes an acceptable article out of them.Mdtemp (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Serves a navigational purpose and the redlinks could simply be removed. — Esquivalience (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know AfD is not for article clean-up, but I think an exception could be made in this case because these articles have no content supported by reliable sources. I think these topics may well be notable, but only with decent referenced articles. I don't believe either of these articles belongs in the main article space as they currently exist. Papaursa (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not cleanup. We don't make exceptions to the rules because you don't like it. And redlinked articles are articles that should be created. Smartyllama (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's clean-up and then there's the fact that these articles currently fail to meet WP:GNG, which is the default standard of notability. I have no objection to this topic being on WP but I do believe articles need to meet some notability criteria. Currently that evidence is lacking. These last two sentences are why I suggested putting them in user space. Papaursa (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the topic meets GNG that should be fine, regardless of the state of the article, which can be cleaned up. But so far no one has offered any evidence of coverage that would meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2016 (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.