Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Kozioł

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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 17:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Kozioł

Matthew Kozioł (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable per WP:ATHLETE. Paddel Netret also seems to be a nn competitor (GHits). Visor (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I can't find any proof this guy even exists, let alone these awards. Borders on a hoax ... almost G3-able in my book. I won't object if another admin decides to pull the trigger on this one, though. Blueboy96 15:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Kozioł does exist, he is just not as famous in as he is in Poland. Ford Prefect 2 15:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • But still there are no claims of notability. Visor (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - nomination shows unfortunate systemic bias problems - David Gerard (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete; since when has Canada had systemic bias issues? As far as I can tell from the article, he boxed in Canada. Was this deleted before: [1] is one of the few hits I see to anything to this article. The article doesn't give enough evidence to really research it; I'm not sure anything in there counts as a statement of notability. What tournament? When? None of the other boxers are showing up on searches. If not completely bogus, I'm going with completely nonnotable. --Prosfilaes (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Probably a hoax. - Darwinek (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. non-notable, whose claim to fame is defeating Paddel Netret, who also retrieves zero google hits. Kingturtle (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Establishes he won a lightweight championship. More details are needed, but there's a clear claim of notability. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Since when are all lightweight championships notable? And it doesn't establish that he won anything; it claims it, with no sources.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Regardlss. There is a claim of notability. The nomination was done with what appears to be very little thought about the issue. The article has been created twice with similar facts but different wording. Let's slow down and do a bit more than punch it into Google and declare that all necessary research is done. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Who cares if there's a claim of notability, especially if it's a lie? Uncited, unverifiable crap like this does Wikipedia's readers no good. You have five days; that's plenty of time to find something about him. --Prosfilaes (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Self-evidently a hoax as we can see from the original. WP:CSD#G3 may apply although I'm happy enough to let this run its course. Notability? This fails WP:V. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It is different in the old version because I misinterpreted data and ended up changing its context signifigantly.Ford Prefect 2 13:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford Prefect 2 (talk • contribs)
• Delete as par nominationCoffeepusher (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• I can't access original as it only seems to be available to admins. But I'm confident that as an admin Angus McLellan knows of what he speaks, and so I will vote delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• There's an AFD for the previous incarnation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Koziol. Basically the current version has tap dancing, different parents, a different date of birth, a different number of fights undefeated, and a different parting speech. Everything else, including the improbably existence of Czechoslovakia before WWI, is the same. Ford Prefect 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) edited the previous article to add that "Legend has it he invented the very first candy floss machine during his retirement". His deleted contributions show him to be a serial creator of hoaxes and nonsense. Phil Sandifer and David Gerard are wrong on this one. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, I see not much neither in sources nor in notability.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - article shows unfortunate unverifiability bias problems. --Dragonfiend (talk) 08:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Nominator was incorrect to claim non-notable as there is a claim of notability in the article but without any sources, it does not meet WP:V. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - thoroughly notable if the story was true and we'll understand someone born in 1870 won't get much coverage on internet, still some shred of reference is required to prove that that person really existed. greg park avenue (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless sources are found. None of the names turn up anything and they all sound made up, particularly after reading the Canadian Encyclopedia's article on Canadian boxing [2]. Reggie Perrin (talk) 05:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"Kozioł himself wanted to take a course on tap dancing but his father urged him to take a course on boxing. Kozioł never tapped again." Come on, this is obviously a hoax.:) Reggie Perrin (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2008 (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.