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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Evans (boxer)[edit]

Mark Evans (boxer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable boxer who meets none of the criteria at WP:NSPORTS#Boxing. The entire article consists of the fact that he's a professional super featherweight boxer. Boxrec currently ranks him 292nd in his division. Papaursa (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of notability. Article consists of the statement he's a professional boxer. He's now had 5 professional fights and obviously fails WP:NSPORTS#Boxing. Astudent0 (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The subject's five-fight record does not come across as notable, in my view. Janggeom (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wow, ranked 292nd in his division with a grand total of 5 fights. Subject fails to meet the notability standards for boxers. I can't believe this one line article was rejected for speedy deletion. Mdtemp (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rejected it for speedy deletion because it seemed possible that the subject met the general notability guideline, as there are multiple reliable sources that discuss him. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that I too had thought it was an obvious speedy. WP:CSD says it's eligible if it "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" and, since all the article said was that he was a professional boxer, it seemed clear cut (I think it's obvious that not all boxers are notable). I can now see Paul's thinking on this--thanks for sharing. However, I still strongly believe he's not notable. Papaursa (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2012 (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.