Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Garcia

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Garcia[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer does not meet WP:NBOX PRehse (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Fails to meet either WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. There's a lack of significant independent coverage, junior boxing titles fail to show notability, and notability is not achieved by having a famous promoter. I think it's quite possible he becomes a notable boxer, but right now it appears to be WP:TOOSOON. Papaursa (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it's debatable whether or not he meets WP:GNG, but he does meet WP:NBOX as it is currently written. It was my error to not keep up with the changes in the criteria, especially the one that changed the ranking criteria from top 10 to top 15. Papaursa (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Up and coming and on the rise rapidly; very unique for his age. Very popular amongst the Latino community, the Mexican community in particular. This isn't like any other teen boxer out there. Quickly on his way to fame due to his spotless record. CloudKade11 (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Up and coming" is another way of saying "not yet notable", as is "on his way to fame". Popularity is not a WP notability criteria. I'm willing to change my vote is someone can show WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not believe he passes WP:NBOX, but the existence of some sources [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] make an arguable claim he meets WP:GNG (though he did fight on ESPN, which may discredit that source). I personally have no comment on the matter, but if WP:GNG isn't met, draftify is better than delete. SportingFlyer talk 02:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources seem like significant, independent coverage of him. Most are routine sports reporting and one is an interview with his father/trainer. I see nothing there to show WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the LA Times had a good article, and the notability of ESPN was also good; also the fact a boxing blog wants his opinion on the upcoming fight was a good showing of potential notability. I think it's closer to being met than not. SportingFlyer talk 02:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a good feature article: [6] SportingFlyer talk 03:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Currently ranked 11 by the WBO and 15 by the WBA and therefore eligible to fight for two world titles. --Michig (talk) 06:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:11, 3 April 2018 (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.