Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Boxing Federation

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World Boxing Federation

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

Non notable boxing organization. Article has no sources and the only link is to the organization's home page. It's been tagged for 2 years as needing sources and my search found no significant coverage of the organization itself, just a lot of routine sports reporting on bouts it sanctioned. It exists, but isn't notable.Mdtemp (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the article is a copyvio from http://www.worldboxingfederation.net/wbfabout.htm and probably should have been speedied.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable boxing organization. Deletion is not cleanup. NickSt (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about cleanup, it's about notability. Please list (and add to the article) significant and independent coverage of the organization itself.Mdtemp (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the copyvio - which is grounds for deletion.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search didn't find the significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. There's a lot of passing mentions because of the bouts they've sanctioned, but that's not enough to show notability. As far as the copyright violation goes, if this organization isn't notable it's a moot point, and if it is notable then there should be good sources from which an article can be written. Papaursa (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG with no independent sources and my own search found nothing to support notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has a number of issues and needs clean up. We may all agree that professional boxing has a ridiculous number of sanctioning bodies, however, that makes it even more interesting for Wikipedia to have unbiased information on the different organisations. The WBF has been around for more than 25 years and has been sanctioning body of numerous title bouts involving notable fighters like Darrin Morris, Greg Haugen and Jeff Malcolm. Evander Holyfield has held the WBF heavywieght title. Indeed, the article should be improved, but the notability should not be questioned IMO. Pugilist (talk) 06:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have re-written the History section that was a simple copy of the organisation's web page and have added a few references. More to come when a get a bit more time. Pugilist (talk) 08:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have some problems with your edits and claims of notability. First, the sources you added are not enough to meet GNG--one is a fight listing for a boxer who once fought for an old WBF title in 1990 and the other is about the old WBF going bankrupt. Second, boxing organizations are notorious for using the same name as defunct organizations but that doesn't make them notable or tie their notability to the original organization's. For a similar discussion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Boxing Union. There's nothing to show these organizations are connected or that this recent version (created in 2009) has received any significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Papaursaltalk: Thanks for your input. In relation to your first comment, please note that my primary purpose was to have the original copyvio deleted. I hope that you do not have a problem with that. In relation to each of the title fights sanctioned by WBF, fighter records can be included in references, but that seems to be a bit of an overkill. I have not (yet) counted the number of sanctioned title bouts, but assume it is somewhere between 100-200. Each title fight is normally witnessed by a crowd of 1,000+ with addition of television exposure. Media coverage prior to each title fight is normal, thus giving exposure to the sanctioning body. Obviously, additional sources can be listed. In relation to your second observation I agree that boxing organisation may be notorious, but I am not certain that I agree that being notorious is a result of taking other organisations' names. Delta Airlines, Kmart and Chicago Cubs have all taken names of former companies or organisations that once were, but no longer are. Having taken the name of a bankrupt company/organisation does not exclude the new business from being somehow related to the business run by the previous legal entity, especially when former management is still related to the new legal entity. In any event the bankruptcy and related circumstances did create sufficient media coverage of the organisation. When I find the necessary time, additional sources can be added. -Pugilist (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence that "former management is still related to the new"? I don't see anything that connects an organization founded in Tennessee by an American to an organization headquartered in Luxembourg and run by a South African--especially when there's a 6 year gap between the two. Otherwise, it looks more like a name grab in an attempt to gain notoriety by reusing a previous organization's name. I, and others, have said the new organization has gotten passing mentions for sanctioning a number of fights, but that's what boxing organizations do and doing one's job does not grant automatic notability. There's still no significant independent coverage of the new organization. The bankruptcy of a previous organization with the same name has nothing to do with showing this new organization is notable--unless you can conclusively link the two as being the same. Papaursa (talk) 03:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So far no one has provided any significant coverage of this relatively new (2009) organization. Right now it's just another of the many, many minor boxing organizations. Yes, it exists but that doesn't automatically make it notable.Mdtemp (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2014 (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.