Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Quinonero

Add links
Source: 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.

talk) 23:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

David Quinonero

David Quinonero (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)

This article is about a boxer who fails

WP:NBOX and the only source is a link to his fight record. He has never fought for a major world title and is currently ranked 40th in the world. Papaursa (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It looks like he has the potential to be notable, but right now that's just
    WP:NBOX) and the article doesn't show significant independent coverage. Mdtemp (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. According to this he fought for the Spanish title and according to this was the European Boxing Union Cruiserweight Champion. We could do with better sources but he appears to have reached a level where he should be considered notable enough for an article. --Michig (talk) 07:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to go with the Boxing project's criteria which says "A boxer who has fought for or held a non-major sanctioning body title is not considered notable if winning said title is the only reason for notability" and the titles you mentioned are clearly not world titles from one of the 4 major boxing organizations. Papaursa (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He fails to meet
    WP:NBOX. User Michig appears to want to use his own criteria instead of the boxing project's (just like he did in the deletion discussion for Ronald Gavril). 204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oh dear, did I think for myself? I do apologize. --Michig (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must say that the boxing project's notability standards seem to be way out of step with those for other sports, where, for example we include any association football player who comes off the bench for a few minutes in a match in
    Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Well if fought at the Olympics he'd be notable as an amateur. There's also no indication he ever fought at the world championships which would help the notability claim. Michig, I have no problem with you thinking for yourself but I'm a bit sensitive as a veteran of the MMA wars where some individuals insisted that they always knew better than the project's consensus. Papaursa (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that boxing is a long-established mainstream sport regularly covered worldwide by general mainstream media, whereas MMA is a recently-invented entertainment mostly covered by media organisations promoting events or by dedicated fan sites. I'm a bit sensitive about this subject as a veteran of previous
Phil Bridger (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC) P.S. Please don't take that personally as I'm not accusing you of such a nomination.[reply
]
I'm not offended, this isn't the first time we've disagreed. The problem with this fighter is he's never even been ranked in the top 10 of his division (boxrec has him at #43). He may get there, but right now I'd say it's
WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Phil Bridger (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I think you guys are getting off topic, although I did notice that the criteria for martial artists--
WP:MMANOT--require more than just participating once in a game. But I think those projects are better qualified to judge notability of their sports than those saying the cricket standard should apply. Mdtemp (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
We need to find a happy medium. Notability standards for some sports are far too lax, and for some are far too strict. In nearly all cases they seem to be heavily weighted towards Western Anglophone sportspeople. Given the lack of sense of encyclopedic notability among most of the people who weigh into any discussions about the issue I do not intend to try to change them, as I would end up banging my head against the wall. All I can do is pipe up in deletion discussions when individual project standards risk leading to perverse outcomes.
Phil Bridger (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Perverse is in the eye of the beholder. I agree with you that some standardization would be nice because I think setting the criteria at playing one game is ridiculous. Like you, I believe I can't change everyone, so I rely on the notability standards set by each project. Papaursa (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody seems bothered by the fact that there is no significant, non-routine coverage of this boxer. The article lists just his record and the two sources mentioned by Michig are one line mentions in articles about other boxers (and one of those fights didn't even happen). It's hard to claim notability when the subject has a lack of significant, non-routine coverage and fails to meet the notability criteria for his field. Mdtemp (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you're bothered by the sparsity of sources in the article then you could improve it by using some of the sources found by clicking on the word "news" in the search links spoon-fed above by the deletion nomination process.
Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
That works if you want to be "spoon-fed" pablum. Note that Mdtemp didn't say there was no coverage he said there was "no significant, non-routine coverage." I found lots of "X is scheduled to fight Y" and "X beat Y last night" but all of that falls under
WP:BURDEN). I do find it interesting that this discussion has involved more time and effort than went into the one-line article (which still lacks non-routine RS). Papaursa (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Do you also feel
WP:RS are just suggestions? Multiple editors have pointed out the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Papaursa (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry, what I meant was that almost all users voting to delete the article were exclusively citing a guideline that is not, in itself, enough to justify a deletion. A lack of reliable secondary sources existing is enough to delete, but evidence should be presented that such sources are unlikely to exist (Google hits, etc.); it is not enough to just say that since the article doesn't cite sources it should be deleted.
talk) 15:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Users Mdtemp, Mr. Stradivarius, and I all commented that we searched for additional sources and didn't find anything that satisfies
WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2012 (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/David_Quinonero&oldid=1071795039"