Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable boxing fans

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 technical knockout. --Core desat 02:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable boxing fans

WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated topics, and indiscriminate reason for a list. As pointless and unencyclopedic as a List of notable people who like the opera or List of notable people who like Italian food. Masaruemoto 00:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial intersection for a list criterion. --Haemo 00:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure unnecessary and unencyclopedic trivia list--JForget 02:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
K.O. (i.e. Delete) - Textbook case of a list of loosely connected things, in thise case a list of people who have no connections other than that they all have said they like boxing. --Hnsampat 02:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though as usual with these lists, it was fun to read! JJL 04:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia; smacks of OR Bigdaddy1981 05:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if the article had ANY sources (which it doesn't), it would fail WP:NOT. TJ Spyke 06:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above, trivia, loose connections Hut 8.5 06:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite being interesting and intriguing, it is pointless, unsourced and no one cares about it ▓░ Dark Devil ░▓ ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) 07:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of sources, and will be extremely difficult to keep up with. The title is also to broad, making it difficult to include every notable boxing fan. --Nehrams2020 22:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per all. Bulldog123 02:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Unmaintainable, potentially unlimited, unsourced, original research. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:19, 10 June 2007 (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.