Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ranchero Alonzo
Appearance
- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 20:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Ranchero Alonzo
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ranchero Alonzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable boxer that fails
]- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 20:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 20:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 20:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep; The notability standard for boxers, WP:NBOX, does not match the reality of what is already on Wikipedia. Many lesser-known boxers that are already on Wikipedia do not appear to meet the standard either. Also, Ranchero Alonzo is mentioned in at least two other Wikipedia articles. If someone reading those articles wants to know more about Ranchero, as I did, creating a separate page is the best way of providing that information, since there is no applicable list article. Additional references are available, such as BoxRec and numerous news articles, but I do not want to expand the article further, if it is about to be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by OvertAnalyzer (talk • contribs)
Additional references are available, such as BoxRec and numerous news articles, but I do not want to expand the article further, if it is about to be deleted
...sorry, but that's not how article creation or AFD works. You include references to establish notability before you publish the article, not when the article gets sent to AFD. I recommend you use ]- WP:NBOX standard, then maybe we should just go ahead an delete it now. Thanks. OvertAnalyzer (talk)
- As far as I understand it, and I know there's a lot of back and forth over this, but NBOX is secondary. Although I wouldn't have nominated it for deletion if the subject met NBOX (I'd presume that there would be coverage out there somewhere that I can't find), if there's a solid case for GNG then that's enough for me. I wouldn't bother arguing the criteria of NBOX and would happily withdraw the nomination. – 2.O.Boxing 13:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The topic passes WP:NBOX. JoyStick101 (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)]
- @JoyStick101: fancy seeing you here! Lol! Read NBOX and tell me which aspects the subject satisfies. Please provide sources to establish GNG has been met. Simply saying it doesn't make it so. – 2.O.Boxing 12:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: The only reference in the article is an obituary. Anybody who says the subject satisfies GNG are required to do a WP:BEFORE search and provide the relevant sources. This shouldn't need to be said, but here we are. – 2.O.Boxing 12:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)]
- Delete As far as I can tell, he fails to meet WP:NBASIC is. The burden of proof is on those who claim notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)]
- Delete, I can't see evidence that he passes ]
- Delete No sourcing aside from obituary. Avilich (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)]
- 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.