Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julio César Ávalos

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 There is a consensus that it does not meet the notability standards in its current state. However it is possible that the subject may meet these standards in the future. If an article can be made that addresses the concerns in this AfD it may be recreated. HighInBC 03:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julio César Ávalos

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

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Coverage does not meet WP:GNG. I think he technically meets WP:NBOX for his 4th round TKO loss for a vacant WBO inter-continental title, but it's hard to make a convincing claim when boxrec shows him ranked 248th in the world (and 18th among Mexican fighters) in his division. The boxing guidelines are quite generous, probably too much so. In any other martial art his record would not meet the notability standards. His success as a junior doesn't really add to his notability.Mdtemp (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now in any case until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep He meets WP:NBOX, but as Mdtemp illustrates he does so by a slim margin. This is a Mexican fighter that has fought all but one of his fights in Mexico, so I am not expecting English-speaking Wikipedia editors to find much on Google. That does not mean the sources don't exist, but that they are probably mostly in Spanish and are based out of Guadalajara (e.g., newspapers of that country). His one fight, the fight that was outside of Mexico, does have some coverage - [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. Most of this coverage is focused on his opponent, but that makes sense considering that the sources are in English (the native language of his opponent). I think this coverage, even if considered routine, establishes enough to show that the presumption should stand considering the Spanish/Mexico factors unless someone can otherwise show that we reasonable believe sources do not exist (e.g., do a search of hard copy boxing sources from Guadalajara over the last few years). Therefore weak keep. RonSigPi (talk) 02:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I usually go along with articles that meet an SNG, the boxing criteria are so generous with their plethora of titles and organizations as to be less than a crowning achievement. The only coverage I could find, I'd consider routine sports reporting. I also didn't find him listed on the Spanish Wikipedia. His meeting of the SNG by having one fight that qualifies (a 4th round TKO loss) is quite minimal. The burden of proof is on those who claim notability. If someone provides significant non-routine coverage of him, or he gets more significant bouts, I'll reconsider. Papaursa (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:41, 23 October 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.