Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omar Shaick

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 this version as clear cut copyvio. This discussion however indicates that there's no consensus to not include an article on this person, however, so in other words, creating it as a non-copy-and-paste of a news story should be okay. W.marsh 18:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Omar Shaick

Non-notable junior boxing champion: Google returns only 72 hits, and I can find no indication of notability. Prod removed by third party. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 09:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Junior boxing champions are notable. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 10:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Even junior boxing champions that have received zero media attention? Likewise, Omar has competed - at his highpoint - at the national (Australian) level, which does not satisfy WP:BIO's requirement that the sportsperson have competed at the highest level of their competition (ie, international). Since he's made no significant or lasting impact to his field, and has received absolutely no recognition from third parties, there's not much reason to include his article here. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 11:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I see RandyWang's point perfectly, but what makes Omar notable is this – he is a Muslim boxer in a predominantly white field, and his religion is at odds with his impending success. There has actually been a fair amount of controversy in boxing circles in the past few days about the guy [my Google search got 401 hits for "omar shaick" boxing, by the way – what terms did you use?] I don't see any reason why there should be an article about him, unless this gets big. He isn't notable as a boxer, yet. He's notable for his refusal to get tested, and his religion. I'm going to abstain from voting on this one [after all that!!!] — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 12:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Aren't you meant to be on enforced WikiBreak? :) You're right though, I seem to have used the wrong search terms: I get 479 for simply "Omar Shaick," but that still doesn't seem enough to demonstrate notability. As far as I can tell, the only significant thing he's done is refuse a drug test, but that's not really a particularly notable thing. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 23:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I found out how to bypass it :) I still stand by my previous comment, though – I think he's at least slightly notable due to the fact that it's not just a normal refusal to get tested, it's for religious reasons. It's interesting how many articles on the web about the controversy display such blatant anti-Islamicism and racism [note: no bias here... I've been raised Hindu. OK, maybe a little :)]. That said, unless this hits the fan (which I doubt it will), there's not much need for a proper article about him. Aaargh, that sounds confusing! In summary – he is slightly notable (notorious?), but right now we don't need an article about him. Weak delete — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 01:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (athletes) I do not see any of these being met by this particular boxer. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Right now the article is a copy-vio of the site listed as an external link. Wickethewok 13:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Really? In that case, delete. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 13:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but delete as copyvio. JYolkowski // talk 23:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Ey? Keep and delete? What would you like done, exactly? RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 21:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It means that what I would like to see is this discussion closed as keep, but the page deleted through the procedure at WP:CP assuming it is in fact a copyvio. Such a verdict would cause recreations to be treated differently than a discussion closed as delete. JYolkowski // talk 22:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Rather, list on WP:CP as it is a copyvio. :)--Tdxiang Jimbo's 40th Birthday! 09:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Okay didn't realise I would cause controversy over this. As the person who originally added the article I'm not going to vote. I have zero interest in boxing, never heard of the guy, but then again I can probably name about 2 or 3 boxers in the world. When I saw the article on the ABC News site I thaught that it was interesting enough to see what WP had to say. When I realised he had no article I thaught I'd add it. I more or less (if I remember correctly) wikified the news article. If this is a copyvio (copyright violation, I'm assuming) I appologise. I knew the article couldn't be just that story, but as I knew nothing else about him, I figured someone who did (and actually cares about boxing) could add more info. If it gets deleted for any reason, I won't lose any sleep over it, I really did add it in good faith. AussieDingo1983 11:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't worry, nobody was assuming you did it in goodbad (whoops) faith. This page exists to determine whether the article should be included in any form, not because of the way you sourced your information. :) RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 13:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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.