Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boxrec.com

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; despite SPAs, and despite the armwaving nature of some of the arguments for keep, there isn't a sufficiently coherent case for deletion - some of the links presented are passing mentions, but crucially not all.

It goes without saying that insufficiently-sourced 'controversies' (forum posts do not meet reliable source guidelines) should be reverted on sight. That's not a judgement formed from this AfD, that's cornerstone encyclopaedia policy. Perhaps those personally involved with the site should avoid editing the article - and if that leaves no interested editors to work on it, perhaps this would merit another AfD in the near future to form a clearer consensus from outside editors, without prejudice from this one. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boxrec.com

WP:NN ,fansite which only claim to fame is a nationality dispute Gnevin 16:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Its not a fan site it is supposed to be the biggest compliation of Boxing facts and records anywhere on the net. Maybe you need to look around the site to get more of an appriciation for it. Secondly, this nationality dispute my be a very hot topic at the moment and should be reported but there is no need to delete the article because of one crazy editor who has just joined the site today! Beaumontproject 16:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• If you could establish that it's the "biggest compliation [sic]" through a reliable outside source that might help sway some editors (such as myself) to share your opinion. If it's so large then surely there are outside sources such as prominent boxing and sports media that mention the website, right? We need something other than just your word or the word of those who operate the website to establish that it's noteable. --ElKevbo 17:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• CommmentHey...I have no problem with the Criticism, but if it is to stay up then so should the Comment about the Criticism comment only being the view of a couple of people and certainly not the view od all wikipedians...that's a clear way to resolve the issue. You want it up fine, but I want it to be clear that it is only the view of a couple of people...can you live with that, or is your grudge just too bad to have a opposing voice...after all, wiki stresses opposing views in an article! And Beaumontproject joined only a few days ago also and the boxrec page and the John Duddy page is the only thing he has edited. And also for the record...I belong to several boxing organizations...what kind of orgs do you two cats beloing to to make such claims about boxing...are you the press?--Ozzwald35 16:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Commment I welcome criticism as long as it is constructive! Just stop making wholesale deletions. I have been following Wiki for months and only recently started editing after I got the hang of how the place works - maybe you should have done the same. You really have caused havok here today. Beaumontproject 16:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Google search for (link:www.Boxrec.com) returns 100 unique hits out of 171 [1]. All return links seem to be directory or profile listings instead of mentions in 3rd party press. The website has not "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". Fails: Wikipedia:Notability (web). --  Netsnipe  ►  16:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Wikipedia is not a web directory. Has anything about this website ever been newsworthy? All I see are some trivial statistics about the website and meaningless wikilinks to male, female and a bunch of countries. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• CommmentNetsnipe - you obviously havent looked around the site - boxrec is quoted in countless boxing articles, you obviously have no knowledge of the subject and should probably stick to subject that you do know about. First you said it was NN, that was proved wrong, then that it was a directory- thats wrong - what next?? In fact if you search Wiki for "boxrec" you get over 800 hits!!! Vintagekits 19:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Commment*Whereas a Google search just for "Boxrec.com" turns up about 527,000 hits. While this is obviously a very flawed methodology that's a significant number of hits. --ElKevbo 16:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: non-noteable. --ElKevbo 16:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but cleanup. The links presented below by Ozzwald35 seem to be from a diverse set of sportswriters and make a decent argument for notability at least amongst sportswriters. --ElKevbo 17:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment:Also...for the record...Boxrec is the biggest records source in boxing history and it is the most popular boxing website on the internet. Boxrec administrators attend Association of Boxing Commissions (ABC)meetings every year. Boxrec also has a brother/sister wiki site, Mediawiki, which the page on that site would be ideal for the Boxrec page here:

http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/BoxRec.com

Anything else, that is irrelevant to describing Boxrec, should be made in the Talk area!!--Ozzwald35 17:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN fansite. --InShaneee 17:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Websites that refer back to using Boxrec as they’re source…I don’t know how long the links will stay up, but below are a few! There’s a lot more…everyone in the boxing community refers back to Boxrec for fighters records from promoters to reporters to researchers to fans! But the information on the page needs to be correct and accurately backed by valid sources--Ozzwald35 17:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

http://www.inthecorner.net/story.php?id=696 http://www.fightnews.com/hoffman119.htm http://www.realitytvworld.com/index/articles/story.php?s=3441 In German http://www.ingogazelle.homepage.t-online.de/homepageboxen/reportagen/boxrec.htm Honolulu http://starbulletin.com/2003/04/14/sports/story1.html Rochester, NY Newspaper http://www.rochesterdandc.com/sports/general/0606story2_general.shtml Savannah, GA Newspaper http://www.savannahnow.com/stories/062803/SPTguideraboxing.shtml

• Comment Actually if you search Boxrec.com on Google you get 1/2 million hits. Obviously those who are looking for deletion are not sports fans and without doubt not Boxing fans - have you even visited the site or done any research? Vintagekits 17:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly Keep therefore for the above reason I say keep Vintagekits 23:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Definitive source of boxing history and statistics. How anyone could dismiss this as a 'fansite'.. I don't know, kind of scary. Look at the depth of data that they have.. SubSeven 00:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: I own boxrec.com and don't need all the emails and aggravation that I get about it's Wikipedia entry JohnShep 17:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Commment You could be Hitler and not want a page about you but you get it, but its not your choice unfortunately that not how wiki works! The article was put up for deletion for the reason of being NN - that has been shown to be untrue so its a Keep Vintagekits 18:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia should stick to notable/interesting/relevent facts, their BoxRec article is just about an argument that is completely irrelevant to 99.99999999% of the population. What next another article about the article about the argument and then another article about that, it's ridiculous. You should take a look at the BoxRec Wiki 40,000 articles and not one page of crud, delete please.JohnShep 20:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone here is disagreeing that the current article sucks. But that's a poor reason to delete the article entirely. Clean it up, yes. Delete it, no. --ElKevbo 20:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Commment if this issue is causing so much debate then it is obviously notable - racist and racism should be tackled head on in my opinion Vintagekits 23:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I originally said keep, but if the proper material and data about the page, according to Wiki rules and standards as listed in the links below cannot be met and irrelevant material is allowed then it should be deleted!--Ozzwald35 19:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Reliable_source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WEB

• Commment This page was put up for deletion on the basis that it was NN - however, pretty much every boxers profice on wiki was a link to their Boxrec Vintagekits 12:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Closing admin: PLEASE pay close attention to the arguments laid down here. Keep votes seem primarily to represent the view that this website needs to be 'outed' in its criticism section. --InShaneee 14:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Incorrect the criticism of the website should only be only section of the article, however, the article just need adding to and expansion. Vintagekits 14:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This site is the premier depot for boxing-related information, especially fight-related information. I suggest everyone on Wikipedia focus their efforts on removing more worthy BS this site occupies BoxNut83 15:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly Keep Its a strong well known tool for boxing data. Why not delete Google page while you are at it? I had originally thought that Wikipedia would only delete pages, that are non-sensical, hoaxes, or self promotional. If anything it needs editing/some rewriting. Maya Levy 16:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Definitely Keep - Boxrec is the only site on the net which has the records of pretty much all active professional fighters (and thousands of retired boxers!). It's a vital source of information for ALL boxing fans. How can you even consider deleting this vital boxing website from Wiki? Many professional boxers have a boxrec hyperlink on their personal websites to show everyone their career results, which merely emphasizes how important Boxrec is! - LAWLLB

If Boxrec is all it's saying, surely it wouldn't be too hard to rectify it's mistake and change Duddy's nationality.

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.