Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rolandas Jasevičius

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 no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rolandas Jasevičius

[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)

Does not meet WP:SPORTSCRIT, Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. PROD was contested but unable to locate independent significant coverage of this individual. C 679 06:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Boxing and Lithuania. C 679 06:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to have been well-known in Lithuania, which Lithuanian media did you search in your WP:BEFORE? I found the basics in an Lithuanian Sports Encyclopedia, coverage of his European bronze in 2004 (career highlight = not WP:ROUTINE) and WP:SUSTAINED coverage of an assault later in 2004 that halted his career. Geschichte (talk) 07:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Olympics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Geschichte. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments/Question Competing at the Olympics is no longer sufficient to show WP notability, especially when you're badly beaten in the opening round (54-21). A bronze medal at the European championships doesn't meet any SNG and his semi-final bout was stopped in the second round of the fight (where he lost to someone who lost in the second round of the Olympics). The coverage of his bronze medal was just coverage of the results of the Lithuanian boxers in the event. His short listing in the Lithuanian Sports Encyclopedia is more of a database entry than an article. Being a crime victim doesn't make him WP notable, either. Since he fails WP:NOLY and WP:NBOX, he needs to meet WP:GNG. I don't read Lithuanian, but I can use Google translate. Can someone please point me to the coverage that shows he meets WP:GNG? Thank you. Papaursa (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have a difference of opinion on the quality of the sourcing. Do we have any boxing fans that can weigh in?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The crime part isn't supposed to make him notable as a victim, but is highly significant and relevant to his career trajectory. WP:SUSTAINED seems unquestionably met in my opinion. Specific details of results, first and second round etc. aren't necessarily relevant for the discussion. WP:NOLY is irrelevant since it states "Significant coverage is likely to exist for...", but by discussing specific coverage found by someone, we are past that. Geschichte (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm confused. WP:NOLY says significant coverage is likely to exist for Olympic medalists, which he is not. Why are we "well past..discussing" meeting WP:GNG? It's also not clear to me that competing in the Olympics and later getting mugged is what sustained coverage is about. It seems to me like either an SNG or the GNG needs to be met. I'm not saying the GNG can't be met, just that I haven't seen convincing evidence it is. That's why I didn't vote to delete, because I feel there may well be significant coverage. People with potentially promising careers who are killed or severely injured in auto accidents or crimes don't become notable because of their misfortune. I'm not trying to be difficult, I really just want to understand the prevailing thinking. Papaursa (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any uninvolved thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2024 (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.