Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal Boxing Federation
- 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. The Bushranger One ping only 22:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Universal Boxing Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested Speedy. Article creator has admitted to creating paid promotional articles. Non-notable sports organization formed two months ago. Can find no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Ridernyc (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article creator has never admitted to creating paid promotional articles that do not meet the wikipedia policies. The nominator first marked it for speedy deletion which has been dropped by an editor and now again marking it for deletion without further checking. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See my response to his continued attempts at distration and continued refusal to provide sourcing here [1]. Ridernyc (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article creator has never admitted to creating paid promotional articles that do not meet the wikipedia policies. The nominator first marked it for speedy deletion which has been dropped by an editor and now again marking it for deletion without further checking. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I contested the CSD, but only to suggest it deserved a wider discussion here because some sources were present. I haven't had time to check out the references, or search for any others, to establish notability. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note If you think the links given in reference section are not reliable then explain the reason on the debate. Please, share your views for proposing the deletion. Please, don't just comment that you didn't find any reliable sources etc. If the sources are found non-reliable or no reliable sources are added then admins will do the rightful for the article. Also, you'll not find me arguing with non-reliable sources. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON. Source 1 is self-published, source 2 is a wiki, sources 3 and 4 are not in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources--more like brief press releases. Google News search turns up little more. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete My search didn't turn up any significant coverage in reliable sources for this organization. I found lots of press releases and posts to blogs, wikis, Twitter, Facebook, and youtube. However, none of these support a claim of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2013 (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.