Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Cyber Boxing Zone lineal champions

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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cyber Boxing Zone lineal champions

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

Article with no independent sources about a web site that's created their own list of world boxing champions. Nothing shows notability. Jakejr (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I spawned this article out of Lineal championship because a user was constantly amending that article to reflect their opinion that the CBZ list is somehow a definitive list of lineal champions. See Talk:Lineal championship#rm lists, and revisions 563369247, 567998686 et seq. I have no opinion on its notability, though it does have input from something called the "International Boxing Research Organization". I personally don't care if it's deleted, but presumably the user who wants its data listed at Lineal championship would be even less happy to see it removed altogether from Wikipedia, while I would hate to see it being given the implicit Wikipedia approval of being on the main lineal championship page. Perhaps an alternative to deleting the page would be moving it to Cyber Boxing Zone. Category:Boxing websites is pretty thin at the moment. jnestorius^(talk) 11:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing that shows this list is any more WP notable than a list I'd create and put on a website (no heavyweight champion from 2004-2009?). An admittedly quick google search didn't show me significant independent coverage for CBZ. If such coverage could be found and an article on CBZ was created, then I'd be OK with merging this article into that one. However, that's a lot of IF. Jakejr (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The gaps in the lineages are not a mere oversight; they are a consequence of champions retiring or changing weight class. I have scraped together enogh references for a Cyber Boxing Zone article if you want to merge it there. jnestorius^(talk) 13:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had some difficulty accepting a List when there was no main supporting article. How could a list be notable when the subject is not? Since the Cyber Boxing Zone article has now been created I think the list can be kept separate or merged. I would like to see a little more added to the Cyber Boxing Zone article to make a case for notability (ie. why is it notable).Peter Rehse (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Peter's comment. I don't think the CBZ article shows notability--it's not even mentioned in some of the sources and there's a lack of significant independent coverage. If CBZ isn't notable then the list certainly isn't. Papaursa (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cyber Boxing Zone This keeps the information on WP at least until the Cyber Boxing Zone is determined to not be notable, if that decision is ever reached.Mdtemp (talk) 15:52, 22 August 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:50, 23 August 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, czar · · 02:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As others pointed out, I think this comes down to whether or not the Cyber Boxing Zone is notable. I'd say we need a notability discussion about CBZ to settle this.Mdtemp (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have also nominated Cyber Boxing Zone for deletion on notability grounds as part of this discussion.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this seems to be a valid list and there are plenty of blue links in the list to validate a use for the list. Technical 13 (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean. Of course the article has plenty of blue links--they're to recognized boxing champions. However, that has nothing to do with the notability of CBZ. Papaursa (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - neither Cyber Boxing Zone nor this list show any sign of meeting notability requirements - as Papaursa points out above, links on the CBZ page don't even mention that site, giving an initial false impression of notability StuartDouglas (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search didn't find significant independent coverage of this site and the article's sources are mainly primary, don't mention the site at all, or are passing mentions.Mdtemp (talk) 15:29, 13 September 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.