Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wladimir Klitschko vs. Bryant Jennings

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. Swarm ♠ 06:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wladimir Klitschko vs. Bryant Jennings

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

Unlike the other boxing fight articles, the fight was not significant in NO way. Either the article has to be upgraded like the other ones or I think it should be deleted.

David-golota (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fight received significant and substantial coverage from multiple major media outlets. For example, here are articles from the New York Times [1], Washington Post [2], Boston Globe [3], and Chicago Tribune [4] (note an ESPN article is already in the article). Further, I fail to understand the rationale for the nomination. Unlike what other boxing fight articles? How was this fight less notable than say Amir Khan vs. Paul McCloskey, Andre Berto vs. Victor Ortiz, Saúl Álvarez vs. Kermit Cintron, or Nonito Donaire vs. Omar Narvaez. This was a fight for the biggest title in boxing (arguably in sports) at arguably one of the most famous venues in boxing and the United States. For comparison, many of title fights of Lennox Lewis, Riddick Bowe, and Evander Holyfield have articles (lineal heavyweight champions of the last 20 years). Not to mention, to look at another combat art, all UFC, World Extreme Cagefighting, EliteXC, and Strikeforce events have articles and many of those events didn't include title fights, let alone of their most prestigious title. In addition, you said this article should be upgraded like other articles or deleted. When has that ever been a rule? Many stub articles exist waiting to be improved and the common course of action is to try to make articles better without threatening deletion. RonSigPi (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Im not for those articles you mention. I suggest they will be deleted aswell.

If the fight really was that significant, then why is the article so short? I suggest you upgrade the article as the likes of other boxing fight articles David-golota (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Routine sports coverage is not enough to meet WP:GNG. No evidence this meets WP:NEVENT. Mdtemp (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every single Formula One race has its own article, as does every single UFC event, and I won't even begin to rattle off the amount of separate sub-articles for NFL seasons and other such sports. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the significant coverage in independent secondary sources, not because boxing is in any way equivalent to MMA or Formula One. It's its own thing, with its own product standards. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was a unification bout of several major titles and therefore significant in the word of boxing for that alone. The length of the article has no bearing on the argument but really the original author could have put a bit more effort to make the notability clear with references that he quickly added to the AfD debate. It is almost impossible to directly compare boxing with UFC or Formula 1 but one would think any title fight for a major belt (clearly defined in WP:NBOX would have a place.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, that's twice now that my F1/UFC/boxing comparison has been dismissed. How about some reasons?—I'm curious. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was saying it is difficult not dismissing but at the very least you are comparing the broad with the specific. Not all motor sport events have their page or all MMA events - and not all boxing fights are the level of the UFC (not all UFC events should have their own page either).

That doesn't answer much. Every single F1 event has an article, likewise every single UFC event. This was indeed a major heavyweight title fight, so what I was originally getting at was that it absolutely deserves an article if the aforementioned sports are to have their own. However, I was not saying that every single title fight needs one. I highly disagreed with Lucian Bute vs. Jean-Paul Mendy having its own article, and even tried to get shot of it, but that went nowhere. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm seeing is a lot of reporting on the results of the fight, but that's routine coverage. Where is the coverage showing this was a significant event that meets WP:NEVENT? Mdtemp (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how I see the coverage. Here are a few examples:

[5] - build-up article about the fight (specifically the challenger).
[6] - deeper analysis on the fight that goes beyond the fight result.
The remaining of the above do report the results of the fight, but I think go deeper than routine. Further, they are written by what appear to be writers of the papers in question as opposed to the same Associated Press article.

for other examples not above through a quick Google search:

[7] - a preview of the fight that give historical perspective (note from a paper not of the US or Ukraine).
[8] another preview/historical piece.
[9] - analysis on America's opinion of the champion in anticipation of the fight.
[10] - coverage on a major popular culture website. Its short, but boxing coverage on TMZ is far from routine.

I found all this with minimal effort. If you still don't think this shows coverage that goes beyond routine, then please elaborate because we may have different ideas of what is routine. RonSigPi (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2015 (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.