Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Elbiali

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. There was no consensus among the editors as to whether the sources provided in the discussion and in a WP:BEFORE search qualified as WP:SIGCOV or WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL, or not in-depth coverage. Mkdw ^talk 03:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Elbiali[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very lazy effort for an article but a modern professional boxer with in excess of ten wins in fights sanctioned by a recognized sanctioning authority conveys automatic notability in my opinion. In MMA it is just 3 bouts never mind 10 wins.--Donniediamond (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In MMA its 3 bouts at top tier, not overall. Those who make those criteria typically have far more professional fights. WP:NBOX is clear.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even still I consider a professional boxer with ten wins in a major boxing nation is notable. He would pass GNG if the author was bothered to fill the article out.--Donniediamond (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your belief about notability isn't as important as WP:GNG and WP:NBOX. You can't just make up your own notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh but it must certainly is. A quick Google search confirms he passes WP:GNG. I also consider the bar for WP:NBOX to be the highest for any established major world sport and outdated.--Donniediamond (talk) 11:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My search only found fight announcements and results, which would be considered routine sports coverage. Would you please list the sources you found that you believe show he passes WP:GNG? Papaursa (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've looked very hard. Would you consider this article routine 'fight announcements and results'? I can provide more if you wish.--Donniediamond (talk) 09:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did see that article, but it doesn't qualify as independent--it's from the school newspaper where he's a student. Papaursa (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that that precludes it from qualifying, nor does this feature on Elbali or this recent article or this article about his national TV appearance or this report in the Miami Herald or this article about his style and fashion let alone the hundreds of fight previews and fight reports about him.--Donniediamond (talk) 09:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Right now I don't see enough significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Pre-fight promotional articles don't count. Most coverage appears routine.Mdtemp (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reviewing the links provided by Donniediamond, I believe that this subject has received satisfactory coverage from reliable third party publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And yet looking at his professional record he has not fought for any titles much less any significant ones as described by WP:NBOX. None of the coverage described makes him stand out enough to overcome that.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider that he passes WP:NBOX following the new information that he has fought in the WSB.--Donniediamond (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does the WSB meet WP:NBOX? Papaursa (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The WSB meets WP:NBOX as it is a competition superior to a national championships and therefore qualifies under Criteria 4. Boxers who compete in the WSB or APB qualify under NBOX Criteria 4.--Donniediamond (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with that, especially when you see the U.S. had 3 teams the year he competed. That makes it seem less than a national title. Papaursa (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really consider the WSB below a national championship? Most elite boxers do not even enter their national championships anymore if they have WSB obligations. Yes there were 3 teams based in the USA in that season of the WSB but there were a total of 12 teams across the globe and each team, including Elbiali's Miama Gallos, were picked from an international roster of elite boxers.--Donniediamond (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm calling this one a pretty "weak keep", but he does pass. The article is a stub and needs much improvement, but the article itself is irrelevant. It's the article subject that should be the center of discussion here. I agree that the person does not meet WP:NBOX, but he does seem to meet WP:GNG. I found fight coverage sources such as this, this, this, a sports stats page here, and a list of feeds regarding him and various fights here. The best coverage I found find is this news release. The coverage is secondary, I have no proof to assert that they are unreliable, and most do cover him as the main topic of discussion. There also seems to be a significant amount of various coverage on his fights, stats, and events (allbeit they may not be reliable or meet the standards that we require). This person is borderline WP:TOOSOON, but I think this is a case where the person barely makes it over the fence here; I believe that collectively, all of these sources do add up to assert notability. I'm going with keep. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lot of what has been provided is not independent or just routine. For example, the Miami Herald article ends with a number to call for tickets - that questions the independence of that piece. The FIU article is borderline - its an interest piece about one of their students. Is that independent? (side note, would be interested to see how University newspapers are treated generally for WP:GNG purposes). The PBC profile certainly isnt independent. The Sherdog play by play is just routine. There is stuff out there on him, but as of what is now shown it just seems like its a lot of promotion and routine coverage. RonSigPi (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I've held off voting because I've been hoping to see enough significant independent coverage to show he meets WP:GNG. I don't believe he meets WP:NBOX so WP:GNG is the relevant criteria. The sources mentioned by Oshwah consist of a promotional press release, round by round coverage of one of his fights (clearly routine sports reporting), a stat profile, and what he calls the best source is a promotional press release touting an upcoming fight card and telling about where and how to buy tickets. The coverage of a student by his school newspaper has never, to my knowledge, been considered an independent source. Papaursa (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
*Speedy Delete Obviously fails WP:GNG Graham Ceca Kiwis (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)— Graham Ceca Kiwis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]

Struck !vote from indefinitely blocked sock puppet.--Donniediamond (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE I managed to find several articles one, two, three in seconds, easily meeting WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These were mentioned before and discounted. Articles announcing and promoting fights are not considered "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and thus do not qualify as meeting WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discounted? By who? No in the opinion of Dick Laurent is dead or multiple other editors including myself. I will add this source to the multiple others listed above.--Donniediamond (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, discounted by who? All three sources are independent of the subject, with them giving plenty of coverage of the individual. These are interviews with the person in question. Where does it say that "Articles announcing and promoting fights are not considered"? Surely that's a contradiction, as it would apply to 99% of all sports biographies on here. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discounted in the sense that repeatedly listing the same reference doesn't make it more notable. When this is done with multiple sources it gives the incorrect impression of a large number of references and this is particularly bad when the sources are of debatable (or worse) value in meeting WP:GNG. How is the promotion of his fight saying where and how to buy tickets an independent and unbiased source? Papaursa (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now perhaps at best because the article seems acceptable enough and this can be renominated again if needed later. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 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.