Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rolly Lambert Fogoum

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. OSE/uses these sources digression aside, there is consensus tha the sourcing does not support notability for this particular boxer Star Mississippi 01:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rolly Lambert Fogoum[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NBOX; WBO Africa is a minor regional title and the UBO is a lightly regarded organisation, neither are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing/Title Assessment

Reference 1 is a stat site; reference 2 is an interview; reference 3 is a primary source from the WBO; reference 4 is probably the strongest source, but it's routine fight coverage; reference 5 is a passing mention; reference 6 is a primary source from the UBO; and reference 7 is a book listing.

My BEFORE search (in English and French, Worldwide and Cameroon) found these same references along with routine fight coverage and this, which is an interview on a blog so does absolutely nothing for notability. Fails WP:GNG. ².O.^Boxing 10:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 10:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 10:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 10:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cameroon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As per nominator this topic is not notable but who's recently created article Jamie Mitchell (boxer) meets notability criteria where he used almost same references which are used here in this article. What is the logic for deletion this page? DMySon (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @DMySon: Mitchell is a WBA world champion, so passes NBOX with flying colours. With such an achievement, a quick Google search shows she also passes GNG with flying colours. Notability isn't about what references are in the article, it's about what references are available to demonstrate notability. I really shouldn't have to explain this. However, if you think there's even the slightest chance that Mitchell fails to satisfy notability criteria, you can always nomiate it for deletion. I'd strongly advise against it though.
  As for my logic for deletion this page, you'll find that in my nomination rationale. – ².O.^Boxing 13:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough References to passes WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. Best WP:THREE 1. Boxrec- BoxRec, professional and amateur boxers record website passes WP:RS passes GNG 2. Tapology- Boxing news website passes WP:RS, 3. World Boxing Organization - World Boxing Organization website independent and reliable passes WP:RS and GNG. 4. The Sports Journal - Sports news magazine passes WP:RS. DMySon (talk) 06:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @DMySon: Really? Wow. Reference 1 and 2 are stat sites, no WP:Significant coverage, they're not even close to satisfying GNG. Reference 3 is routine fight coverage by the WBO, of a fight for a WBO title. Not even close to being independent and does nothing to satisfy GNG. Reference 4 appears the best source. I'll now quote what the source says of Lambert, Rolly Lambert Fogoum vs John Napari (Cruiserweight)...that is it. Nothing else. That doesn't even classify as a mere passing mention lol does not satisfy GNG.
  It's actually quite concerning that somebody with the NPR rights has such a fundamentally poor understanding of how notability guidelines work; an issue that needs raising elsewhere I think. – ².O.^Boxing 10:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - As per your opinion if these websites are not reliable, then your recently created article Jamie Mitchell (boxer) also not satisfy GNG, afterall you used the same websites as references to justify her notability. DMySon (talk) 11:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Editing Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT is disruptive. I recommend you stop. I'll say again, nominate Mitchell for deletion if you think there's a notability issue. It would probably be a handy learning curve for you. – ².O.^Boxing 12:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rolly Lambert is a WBO and UBO Africa champion. He has fought at international level in all across the world. Clearly passes WP:GNG. JoyStick101 (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @JoyStick101: Please provide sources to establish GNG has been met. – ².O.^Boxing 12:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sources are already provided in the article and above by DMySon. JoyStick101 (talk) 12:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - They don't satisfy GNG, as demonstrated above. Please explain why you believe they do. – ².O.^Boxing 12:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - This point is also explained by DMySon above. The same resources are provided by you in your article Jamie Mitchell (boxer). Now you explain why your statements are different on both the places. JoyStick101 (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        You seem to be reading the discussion with tinted glasses. DMySon presented references which were subsequently refuted with policy based arguments. Please provide/explain how sources establish GNG for this subject. And for the third time, if you think there's a notability issue with Mitchell, nominate the article for deletion. You'll find out what the difference is–something which you should already know if you're creating articles. – ².O.^Boxing 13:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        You didn't answer my question why your statements are different on both the places.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoyStick101 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        The question has already been answered. Read the discussion. You still haven't responded to my query; what sources demonstrate GNG has been satisfied, and how? – ².O.^Boxing 13:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think you answered my question. But I have already answered your question. Check the discussion properly. JoyStick101 (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        
        If you can't adequately justify, with policy based arguments, why you think Rolly Lambert Fogoum satisfies GNG then any reviewing closer will simply ignore your !vote (as they will with DMySon's self-admitted POINTy contribution). So, please, do carry on. – ².O.^Boxing 13:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing to show this person is WP notable. He fails to meet WP:NBOX and there is insufficient significant independent coverage to show he meets WP:GNG. Routine sports coverage doesn't show notability. The fact that there are other boxers who don't appear notable is immaterial (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Papaursa (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's only had a handful of competitive fights and hasn't beaten anyone of note. The titles he's won are not recognized ones. I couldn't find coverage to justify having an article either. --Michig (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A world champion who fought for world title WBO fights, passes WP:NBOXING. Inspect61 (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Inspect61: You might want to actually read the article before giving your input. He's never fought for a world title, so how could he be a world champion? Lol – ².O.^Boxing 07:53, 17 March 2022 (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.