Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Cully

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 ~~both~~ Jim Cully, but not Ewart Potgieter. There was no AfD notice on the page of Ewart Potgieter so this was not a proper nomination for him. --MelanieN (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On review: There had been an AfD notice on the Ewart Potgieter page, but an IP removed it a few days ago. The notice was in place for two weeks, which is more than enough to satisfy procedure, and the consensus here was clear, so I will delete the Ewart Potgieter article as well. --MelanieN (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Cully

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

Non-notable as a boxer and being the 4th tallest boxer with little or no coverage does not override that. Fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason (3rd tallest in this case):Peter Rehse (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As an aside I almost included Gogea Mitu but ended up restoring an earlier form which was better sourced and had more meat than what was up. In this case the claim to be histories tallest boxer might (barely) be grounds for notability but he does have better coverage.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being tall is not enough to show notability. None of the boxers mentioned meet WP:NBOX and there is no significant independent coverage for either Cully or Potgieter.Jakejr (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both I agree with the previous advocates for deletion. Being tall is not grounds for notability, they fail to meet WP:NBOX, and they lack the coverage to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being tall does not have enough requirements to show notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2015 (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.