Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Wilton

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. No evidence has been presented which shows Wilton has been covered significantly (not via passing mentions) by multiple reliable sources, and therefore is found to lack the required notability for inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Wilton

[edit]
Luke Wilton (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)

Non notable boxer. Fails WP:NBOX and therefore Delete. Suarez Mason (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mdtemp added that to the article, but I haven't yet decided how to vote. Without meeting WP:GNG, I'm not sure losing a BBBofC title fight is enough--WP:NBOX notwithstanding. Papaursa (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
losing a British title fails WP:NBOX in my opinion and the sources fail WP:GNG. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. --Suarez Mason (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 13:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Although, as Mdtemp points out, he technically meets WP:NBOX by the thinnest of margins, I think the lack of significant coverage more the outweighs that. Papaursa (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He fought for a title where boxing receives significant coverage. I think fighting for the British title in an original eight weight class goes beyond meeting by the thinnest of margins (if even such a concept should exist or be considered relevant). Unless someone goes to England to research the 2013 print archives for Liverpool (fight location) as well as goes to N. Ireland to research the 2013 print archives for Belfast (fighter's home town) we have to consider this a keep since it meets WP:NBOX. RonSigPi (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a similar argument to one you used before when you said the only way to refute a fighter's notability was, in that case, be a fluent speaker of Polish and go to Poland and prove there wasn't significant independent coverage. Advocating going to the fight location would probably only produce routine sports reporting (promotion and results) so it's irrelevant. Since this article doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, then the fact that he barely meets the weakest notability criteria in the generous assumptions of WP:NBOX is relevant. National runners-up in other sports aren't deemed automatically notable so why is it so in boxing? Papaursa (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And for the article you are referring to the decision was no consensus so its not like my argument was crazy/off the wall or that it was completely discounted. Similar argument and similar logic here - we have presumptions for a reason and a 5 minute Google search finding nothing is hardly evidence of anything. I hold a presumption is valid until reasonably shown otherwise. To your other comment, other sports do have their national runners-up presumed notable. In golf, the U.S. Open is the national championship. Not only the runner-up is notable, but so is the guy finishing in 70th place. The 3rd place competitor at the badminton Canadian Open is presumed notable. Yes, those are open events so its a bit different I will admit, but they are generally considered national championships and they go beyond just the winner. Additionally, this is a bit different of a situation. Not only is the BBBofC more of an exception (to my knowledge, only the US and UK have 'national' titles awarded that confer notability so this would be for only two nations), but in a sporting context its questionable if the UK is a country or multiple countries. In soccer, rugby, and cricket England and Wales compete as nations. Same goes for athletics in the Commonwealth Games (something that finishing lower than 1st can still give a presumption of notability). The BBBofC does award, for example, Welsh and English titles. So its reasonable to treat the BBBofC as a regional body as opposed to a national body. Likewise, its reasonable to not place someone losing their British title as being national runner-up, as you would the loser of the BBBofC Northern Ireland title, but instead treat them as the runner-up in a regional contest as we do for the Asian Games in athletics.RonSigPi (talk) 04:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOX. Could be deleted on either account. --Suarez Mason (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RonSigPi has proposed here WT:NSPORT#Boxing proposal that losers in title fights for non-world title fights not be considered notable and admits that Wilton would not meet his proposed criteria User talk:RonSigPi#Your proposal and Luke Wilton. I would also claim that it's a stretch to claim the BBBofC is an international organization equivalent to Asia's because it has subregions and that losing a title fight is equivalent to finishing second at an event like the Asian Games. It is more proper to say that it's equivalent to finishing last in a two person event as opposed to finishing second in an event with numerous competitors from many countries. Papaursa (talk) 05:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter what is proposed, but what WP:NBOX states now. My proposal was not my personal thoughts, but my best read on the consensus (I even said so much in my message to you). As anyone can clearly see, my proposal is being defeated quite handily so I am not sure what your point actually is. Regardless of the point trying to be made, I stand by my argument. We have SNG for a reason. They give a presumption that an article's subject is notable. It is up to those that want to see the article deleted to establish that the presumption is wrong in this case and therefore the article should be deleted. You may not like the SNG and the presumption the BBBofC title gives, but the presumption exists none the less and it must be respected. Until someone shows that efforts have been made to search the areas one may find sources, and that includes local print and non-print sources and the like that may not make it online, then I presume it likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria. RonSigPi (talk) 05:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Localised coverage from reliable sources is perfectly acceptable -- that is what it is most of the time! And GNG can be easily established with a 5-minute cursory search, as I have elaborated on below. Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please articulate? As PRehse said, the nomination was proven wrong. It's one thing to agree with Papaursa who articulated why the user thinks WP:NBOX should be ignored, but another to agree with an already disproved nom. RonSigPi (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My apologise. I didn't realise the etiquette.--Suarez Mason (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP The breadth of sources compensates the lack of depth, ala material with significant biographical detail. Yes, some of the reliable sources mentioning him may only do so in brief (there is also a short sentence on him here) but that is enough to warrant a keep. Additionally, his profile on BoxRec nicely underlines his notability as a boxer, no matter how small -- while BoxRec is not considered a reliable source, much like IMDB for film, it is indicative of the presence of other reliable sources regarding him elsewhere, and well complements what we have at hand. General notability is met and that is all we need to justify keeping this article. Yes, more can be done to spruce things up, but prettification is another matter entirely... Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], in popular culture!, [6]... Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a new editor I would point out the fact that routine sports coverage is not considered as meeting WP:GNG--and fight results are considered routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 05:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was confused by the bad grammar -- are you the new editor? Anyway, I respectfully disagree. Both GNG and V are fulfilled, and the sheer wealth of sources, local or not, in-depth or not, prove so. It is not always the case that notability can only be shown with a really thorough source. Breadth over a period of time can overcome depth. Most significantly, he has received sustained coverage in Belfast as an up-and-coming boxer. Kingoflettuce (talk) 10:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
he does not pass GNG. Purely trivial coverage. Also fails WP:NBOX as he hasn't won a notable title. --Suarez Mason (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you indeed are the new editor -- can infer so. Was trying to draw logical link to your 'as a new editor' statement; turns out that had not much purpose except for enforcing the opposite. I suggest, instead of badgering your points, you should try to digest my arguments, as well as RonSigPi's, and the policies GNG, SNG, etc. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Brain not working at this time, forgot there were a few entities, didn't look at the timestamps. Nonetheless my points stand. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FYI TOOSOON is not a policy. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:N requires "significant coverage" that I'm not seeing. Kingoflettuce's claims that lots of passing mentions are enough is wrong. Routine sports coverage is what he currently has. WP requires someone be notable and "up and coming" means he's not there yet.Mdtemp (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that he warrants coverage in a reputable and reliable source, routine or not, over a sustained period of time (few years) is enough to establish GNG at the barest levels. And much insight is to be gleaned from these sources. There's plenty more to be found, the state of the article now is independent of the subject's notability. Kingoflettuce (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Routine coverage is never enough to show notability on its own. Please don't make up your own notability criteria.Mdtemp (talk) 01:10, 9 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Luke_Wilton&oldid=1077961033"