Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parveen Kumar (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 no consensus, mainly doe to different reading of the notability guideline. I would suggest having an RfC on amending/clarifying the guideline and return to the issue if it gets amended.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parveen Kumar (boxer)

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

Non-notable boxer who fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. No significant non-routine coverage and losing in the first round of the Commonwealth championships does not meet WP:NBOX (nor does just competing at the national championships).Mdtemp (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Minded towards a 'Keep' !vote at the moment, per NBOX #4 : "have represented their AIBA affiliated country in a continental (or higher) tournament." Thoughts?--Donniediamond (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think losing a first round fight at the Commonwealth Games is sufficient to show notability. Logically, that would imply that all competitors at the Commonwealth Games are automatically notable and I don't think that's in keeping with the consensus at WP:NSPORTS. I know previous boxing discussions have shown some support for Commonwealth medal winners, but not for all competitors. Papaursa (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG with the only references being routine coverage of his first round loss at the Commonwealth Games. As I explained above, I don't think simply appearing at the Commonwealth Games guarantees notability. Papaursa (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NBOX which states "A boxer is presumed notable if he or she...have represented their AIBA affiliated country in a continental (or higher) tournament" AusLondonder (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's one thing for pre-internet fighters which can be hard to find coverage for but another for a current fighter to have no significant coverage. As Papaursa pointed out, this is a presumption that all Commonwealth Games athletes are automatically notable and I know of no rule stating that. I don't believe the Commonwealth Games is the highest level, which has generally been presumed to be the Olympics or at least the world championships.Mdtemp (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed elsewhere, sports with a worldwide scope do not require Olympic or world championship participation. In track, top 8 in the Commonwealth games can do it, and in even lesser contexts top 3 (see WP:NTRACK). In tennis, winning a second tier tournament is enough (see WP:NTENNIS). Same can be said for Motorsports, where competing in the Xfinity Series or GP2 Series, both second tier series, would count (see WP:NMOTORSPORT). Further, guidelines exist for basically national sports, such as American Football and Australian Football. I think highest level competition relates to the level of competition, not the international nature of the event.RonSigPi (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, we're not talking about top 8 or a medal at the Commonwealth Games, but rather someone who lost in the first round. Papaursa (talk) 02:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Normally, I try to stick with a presumption until shown otherwise - that is why the SNGs are there. However, as can be seen in Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports), the boxing guidelines are somewhat confusing. Also, this is a fighter from the 2014 games and from a nation that has a English as a dominant language. Seems like Internet sources should be pretty easy to find if they exist. While I cannot bring myself to go against the presumption the SNGs give, I think this would be a very fair case to require show cause in view of the above. RonSigPi (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is another example of WP:NBOX being far too lenient. If he'd won a medal, the argument to keep might have merit, but not for merely showing up at an event that is not at the highest level.Mdtemp (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the failure to meet WP:GNG trumps the SNG when you consider he is a current athlete and doesn't generate significant coverage. Especially when his meeting of the SNG is so weak. Astudent0 (talk) 07:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added some new references. He fought in the final of his national elite competition, earning a silver medal, which I think just about passes WP:BOX.--Donniediamond (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whatever the guidelines states, keeping would be a common sense move. This is a boxer that has placed in his national tournament and has represented his country at major international competitions, which on the spectrum of amateur boxing activity corresponds as far as I am concerned to competing at the highest level. Sources for Asian topics are often hard to find from a Google search without skills in the languages concerned and knowledge of local media sources, but despite this the article is well enough sourced.--Michig (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep Per WP:NBOX #4, Parveen is considered notable. MrWooHoo (talk) 21:13, 19 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.