Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australian heavyweight boxing champions

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 keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian heavyweight boxing champions[edit]

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

List is an abandoned, isolated, unreferenced example of a series of lists - none of the others where created. Even the text had not been changed from British to Australian when I first Prod'd this. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per our editing policy which makes it quite clear that "Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." Potential sources for the topic include Australian Boxing: The Illustrated History; Australian Boxing World Champions; Fighters by Trade: Highlights of Australian Boxing; Australian Boxing Records; &c. Andrew (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Gene, and WP:NOEFFORT afd isnt an article cleanup process Gnangarra 02:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the link you want is WP:NOTCLEANUP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - nope WP:NOEFFORT says nobody is working is not a valid reason for deletion Delete I gave them six months for someone to add cites, they didn't, and I have lost my patience. – My Way or the Highway, 01:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC) which is the reason for it being nominated. Gnan garra 08:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question How does an unsourced list of names (most with red links) show this topic is notable? There's no indication of what boxing organization's title is being referred to and nothing to indicate notability. I have no objections to putting this in someone's userspace until it is fixed, but after 18 months I think it's reasonable to have some sources and indication of notability. I didn't vote to delete because I want to wait for an explanation as to what I'm missing concerning sources and notability. Papaursa (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- List of National level champions, is notable. yes it does need sourcing but quick check of those who already have articles confirms they belong in the list. possible detailed source for more recent http://boxing.org.au/competition/competition-results/ Gnan garra 08:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- for older boxers individual bios http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/jackson-peter-6814 have info. Gnan garra 08:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Userfy~~ Right now this unsourced article needs a lot of work. I think the topic could be notable, but the current article is a joke for an encyclopedia.Mdtemp (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Michig has fixed this article faster than expected. Nice work, Michig!Mdtemp (talk) 18:29, 14 October 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sure, the article is a mess, and I sympathize with Mdtemp's suggestion to temporarily userfy the article pending a clean-up, but the subject is clearly notable under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. I hope someone with strong knowledge of Australian boxing history will take this on as weekend project. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my indented comment ~~Userfy~~. I agree that it's a technical Keep BUT if that were to occur, we should immediately delete all red-linked names -- you can't just make claims about people without references. Also, lacking additional data, the current table format should be removed and replaced with an unformatted list of the remaining names. We're left with something useless. It would be better to put it into Draft space, to give people the chance to find the necessary information. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to do that from the beginning but thought it best to leave it until after the discussion. If the article is kept it will have to be gutted.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the good work by Michig, I changed my note to keep. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just needs sourcing it seems, which I'm happy to take a look at. --Michig (talk) 06:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It should be fairly easy to add the missing names and find sources for all of this - I've added a few sources already. I have no objection to this being moved to draft until it's improved - it's going to take some time to build it up and that will be difficult if other editors are intent on removing unsourced details. --Michig (talk) 06:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Michig: Well done. With your extensive sourcing and clean-up work, there should be little doubt in anyone's mind that this is a "clear keep." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding my earlier comment, I didn't mean to imply this topic couldn't be notable but I didn't see how an unsourced and ill-defined article could exist on WP. Personally, I like the idea of someone taking the time to fix this article. It might also be nice to define what championship(s) are being talked about since there's such a plethora of boxing organizations. Papaursa (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware there has only ever been one Australian professional heavyweight title (although in the early days it sometimes isn't clear how official the titles were). The ANBF was set up in the mid-1960s to fulfil the same role as the BBBofC in the UK, so I assume that is the only governing body that controls the title. I have now filled in the details as far as I could. I'll revisit it later to add sources. --Michig (talk) 09:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is so much better and in its present form I have no objection to Keeping. The nomination was based on the look of drive by list creation. Created and forgotten during afternoon tea.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kudos to Michig for rapidly fixing this once atrocious article. Papaursa (talk) 16:31, 12 October 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.