Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darren Curovic

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. v/r - T P 19:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Curovic

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

Article makes a large amount of grand claims but no verifiable evidence to support it. fails WP:BIO. nothing in gnews, nothing in a major Australian news website [1]. nothing in Australian search engine trove [2] LibStar (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete My search found no independent sources to support any claims of notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have found independent reliable sources relatively easily and have included them in the article. They include International Kickboxer, which is an independent publication produced by a reputable publishing company, Blitz Publications. Similarly The West Australian and the Community Newspaper Group are also reputable sources. Dan arndt (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Article has been sourced and rewritten. Subject appears to meet notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. The lede sentence and para should make a direct claim to notability that is supported by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. What is the claim to notability here? That he is a fight promoter and or a rep for some fight promo group? The sources supporting this uninteresting claim then can't be from that same fight promo group. Nor can it be from a blog-site (fightmag.net) that appears to closely affiliated with the same group but it is hard to tell as there is no publication information such as the publisher or an address or a phone number. Hardly a WP:RS. One site is a major sponsor of the other; it's hard to tell which way, though. Another point; some of the recent "references" added to the article are deceptive. They claim to be from a reliable source in the citation, yet the URL points back to fightmag.net which is not reliable. The West Australian and the second Community Newspaper ref are deceptively crafted in this manner. The first International Kickboxer reference is also similarly deceptively crafted.

There might be a real story about this gent worthy of an article; but this self-promoting puffery is not it. Bleakcomb (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean about the articles really being at fightmag.net, which is a partner of the WKN and hence can't be considered an independent source. I do feel the sourcing was deceptively stated. My keep vote was based on his 2 bronze medals at the IFMA world championships. Even though those are amateur competitions I still think they're grounds for notability. My concern now is verifying those achievements--his name doesn't appear at the IFMA web site and their link to those older championships doesn't work. All of the sources claiming those awards link back to WKN press releases. Papaursa (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's a promotor and owns a gym, but I don't see anything that makes him notable. The article lacks good sources to support any notability claims. They're either not independent or appear to be local coverage. The claims of fighting success are not supported. Astudent0 (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2011 (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.