Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Reed (boxer)

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 as I would've commented myself but it seems enough time has passed for a close at this time (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Reed (boxer)

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

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would say finishing second at the U.S. national championships is sufficient to meet WP:NBOX, especially when combined with a national Golden Gloves title. I have just added the national championship result and source to the article. I do think the article could use better sources since none of them provide significant independent coverage. They now consist of a fight result, a local fight blog giving him its "prospect of the year" award, a link to his fight record at boxrec, and a link to his bio at his promoter's website. Papaursa (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that he lacks any significant coverage but yet appears to meet WP:NBOX again shows that WP:NBOX is too easy to meet. I also don't think that his Golden Gloves title is significant enough to show notability since that's not an AIBA affiliated title. I do have to agree that WP:NBOX appears to be met and that fighting for a national title has been sufficient for plenty of British boxers to be claimed notable. No doubt WP:GNG is not met by this article.Mdtemp (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG, e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. FWIW, my interpretation of the current WP:NBOX is not that his amateur success satisfies it, but as has been acknowledged in discussions of that guideline, WP:NBOX is a high bar that pretty much guarantees notability, and many boxers that don't satisfy it will still be notable, so we should never have articles brought to AfD simply based on that guideline alone. --Michig (talk) 07:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:58, 21 March 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.