This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I've created this new article. If you've got additional input for secondary sources, please feel free to suggest them at the article's talk page, I'd really appreciate it. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I see that this article was moved to its current location in 2009, following a brief conversation on the talkpage. In the course of that chat, WP:COMMONNAME was mentioned. I just wanted to check with you guys, because I find it hard to believe, do boxing RS really predominantly call him "Marvelous Marvin Hagler" or do they call him "Marvin Hagler"? --Dweller (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
In the "professional record" section of a boxer's Wikipedia page there is a "notes" section that states if that fight is being fought for a title of some kind. Sometimes it is for a World Title, sometimes its a regional title, or a minor world title, or eliminator (etc). For me I like seeing easily which fights are title fights. (World Championship titles from the four main organizations). Currently their just mixed in with all the other titles. I suggest that titles fights should be highlighted in the "notes" section.
Here is an example I created with Victor Ortiz's fight record: http://i.imgur.com/l7bA7.png?1
(Note that this is a just a rough example I quickly made. I know the color should be different, a neutral one, and there should be a legend. I also messed up the formatting)
By highlighting the title fights you can easily point them out. This will help the confusion, and make them stand out from the non-legitimate world titles and also the regional tiles and other titles. You will also easily be able to tell when the first time a fighter has fought for a world title. If you look at a page like Evander Holyfield's fight record, you would be able to tell when the last time he fought for a legitimate world title. These are just two examples of how highlighting title fights would help.
...can anyone tell me if a project page similar to WP:MMANOT exists for Boxing on Wikipedia? I would like to see how the page is laid out so that I can help improve the criteria for WP:MMANOT. I would very much appreciate it if someone can give me a link for the page. Pound4Pound (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Amateur Boxing
Hi guys, I decided to join this project because I'd like to start some cooperation in editing articles considering amateur boxing. The parent article, as well as similar articles (AIBA, for example) just don't meet wikipedia standarts and are not linked with each other. So the first task for me and for the kind users that will join me in this struggle, is to standartize and cooperate information about amateur boxing in these four important articles:
That would be the first thing to do. I will also try to edit articles considering weight classes - both parent article and specific weight category articles. In most of them there is no information about the weight limit for amateur boxing and for World Series of Boxing - there is usually only information about pro boxing, plus some Olympic champs. We should also watch the developement of the AIBA pro boxing, starting in autumn of 2013, which I think will bring revolution to the sport of boxing. Thank you for reading this and I would be more than happy to get some help. --Novis-M (talk) 12:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Sonny Bill Williams
The Sonny Bill Williams vs Francois Botha fight was recently dogged by controversy, and there appears to be a single-issue editor removing all mention of the issue. I have only a passing interest in boxing, but the claims of fixing, or at least, highly irregular behaviour, are widespread and well-sourced. Perhaps someone from this project wants to take a look at the article. Greenman (talk) 07:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
England or the UK?
Compare the articles on David Price and Tyson Fury; should we say that their bouts took place in/their opponents were from England, or the UK? Likewise for Wales and other constituent countries of the United Kingdom. It Is Me Heret / c13:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
At present the notability guidelines for Boxing are:
1.Has fought for or held a world title (regular, interim, super, etc.) of one of the four major sanctioning bodies (IBF, WBA, WBC, or WBO) or a historic major sanctioning body (NYSAC or WBA);
2.Has fought for or held a specialty world title (e.g., duration world title, black world title, lineal world title, pre-sanctioning world title (e.g., pre-1920s), etc.);
3.Has been ranked in the top ten or champion of any weight class by Ring magazine;
4.Has won a year-end award from Ring magazine or the BWAA (e.g., BWAA Fighter of the Year, Ring magazine KO of the Year, etc.);
5.Has been elected to the International Boxing Hall of Fame; or
6.Has appeared in a professional fight on a premium network's pay-per-view or flagship channel (e.g., HBO or Showtime in the United States).
This excludes massive swathes of boxers from being notable. If a boxer has held a national belt - no matter how long, we are stating that that doesn't meet notability. So you could have been Australian Heavyweight champion and it’s only notable if he also appears in the top ten ranking of ring magazine. 'Notable if he has fought a professional fight on TV?' What about our historic boxers who fought before the advent of TV? I recently created the GA article Fred Dyer. It appears I shouldn't have bothered because he doesn't fit WP:NBOX. I understand that these are only guidelines, but they will be used against us to delete many great fighters because they fought at a national level or fought during a period where a shot at the title (usually just the one) was rare and thus our own guidelines are skewed towards our present 'Fight Night' view of what a notable boxer is. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
So to simplify my above rant: Does anyone think we could expand the WP:Boxing notability to take into account boxers that do not fall into the current definition. Any thoughts would be welcome. Cheers FruitMonkey (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely. The current guideline is horribly US-centric, doesn't cater for countries where amateur boxers are often notable, and has the bar set far too high. Many pro boxers are clearly notable before they meet any of these criteria, which currently exclude many British champions, European champions, commonwealth champions - boxers who are often well known to the public. --Michig (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. I know I have come to this from recently being burned on a notability issue of an article I created, but I didn't realise how narrow the Projects guidelines have been set. I can't find any guidelines on referees, managers, trainers, venues, organisations, terminology, etc. It would be great to find further consensus, but I'd be happy to suggest some revised and more detailed guidelines unless there is anyone else out there with a more passionate outlook. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I would propose that the following should be added to the list of criteria for presumption of notability:
Has fought for a national, Continental (e.g. European, African), or Commonwealth title (professionals)
Won a medal at a major international senior tournament (amateurs - not limited to the Olympics, e.g. Commonwealth games, Pan American Games, European Amateur Boxing Championships)
Any boxer meeting either of these would certainly be considered notable in their own country, which would mean that they are sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. I'm coming to this from a British point of view, so there may well be other competitions that I am less aware of that should be included. Many boxers are notable well before they get to the stage where they are competing for major titles, e.g. Tyson Fury, who was notable after a few professional fights - these would probably be covered by WP:GNG. --Michig (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm bumping this again as it's fairly important. The present notability guidelines regarding WP:Boxing is narrow, unbalanced and results in many important boxing articles being threatened with deletion. This may appear like a complicted and pain in the butt topic, but the more people that leave opinion the better. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it is too narrow. From a British perspective it should certainly include British, Commonwealth and European title winners. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, so if from a British perspective we believe that British boxing champions are notable then that means that all national boxing champions are notable. That would be a wonderful start to a rescripting the notablity guidelines. Any other pointers? FruitMonkey (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Be careful with saying "all national boxing championships" confer notability. A person is notable because he receives significant press coverage. Where winning a championship all but guarantees significant press coverage, it also all but guarantees Wiki-notability. Where it does not, it does not. In some countries, some weight classes' national championships may enjoy this level of press coverage, while other weight classes may not. Perhaps it would be best to create a list of countries where, for at least some competitions, winning all but guarantees significant press coverage and change the notability guidelines to "if a person has won a national competition in the countries and competition (i.e. weight, age, am/pro status, etc.) classes described on [page], he is presumed to be notable unless proven otherwise." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
The table used to tabulate a fighter's boxing record, e.g. Muhammad Ali#Professional boxing record, doesn't appear to format very well when viewed on a mobile phone/cell phone (well, not on my phone at least), is there anything that can be done to address this? Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 08:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
There are no less than two discussions that could srongly impact our boxing articles the likes of which we could have never imagined. The discusions are currently taking place Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 June 8 and Wikipedia talk:Non-free content and are about whether or not fight posters should remain on the site or not. We need these images to remain and any opinions on the matter would be greatly appreciated. Beast from da East (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
The outcome of this is going to be used in boxing articles from now on. There is a wishy-washy consensus in the archives over flags, I propose the following;
National flags for boxers ALLOWED in infoboxes
This is the same as some other sports, such as motor-racing. For amateur boxers this could be the country they are from and HAVE represnted at amateur level, for professional boxers the country that they are licienced from, ie not the sub-entity.
No sub-entity flags in boxing record tables, for venues. ONLY if amateur tiltes use for represnting boxer ONLY.
Agree with SaskatchewanSenator. Flags are more trouble than they are worth. Articles on boxers from the United Kingdom have been subject to endless, slow moving edit wars over this. Tigerboy1966 09:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Frank Buglioni
Hello. An editor has requested help with identifying reliable sources at Talk:Frank Buglioni#Professional Career Section. Could someone from here help with this request, please? (Not my area, I'm afraid.) Also, if you have the time, the article could use help – particularly with respect to NPOV. Thanks! – Wdchk (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I put this article up for deletion. I thought this was the best way to generate discussion and get a consensus. Jakejr (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Jimmy Cable
As a test case, I've created an article for Jimmy Cable. I have purposefully chosen him for as far as I'm aware he fails to meet any of the the 7-WP:NBOX commandments. What I would like to ask is "why is he not notable?" Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Degs. I tried to start this conversation a while back, (See Notability guidelines in Archive 3) and didn't get very far. I completely agree with you though, I got the article Fred Dyer to GA standard, but it too does not meet notability guidelines. Have a butchers at the previous conversation and maybe the two of us could draft up new guidelines. They are only in the state they are in due to lack of commitment. Cheers, FruitMonkey (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Fancy meeting you here. I'm currently having a 'discussion' regarding Nat Jacobs. Interestingly it appears to be those involved with Mixed martial arts that are enforcing the WP:NBOX, which could explain why after only 20-years of MMA there are 245-Category:Brazilian mixed martial artists, and after 150-years of boxing there only 45-Category:Brazilian boxers. Perhaps Boxing should adopt a notability guideline as per MMA; 'Have fought at least three (3) professional fights for a top-tier organization', job done. PS. please excuse the spelling of organisation, MMA's a global sport don't you know. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Something to take note of is the WP:NBOX does not determine when someone is notable. It determines when someone is likely to pass WP:GNG. People who don't meet NBOX may still be notable, you just have to proove they meet GNG whereas those who meet NBOX are usually assumed to have done so. Articles that meet NBOX may be deleted and articles that don't meet NBOX may be kept. It is just a rule of thumb. -DJSasso (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
It might seem like a crazy idea, but maybe you all could actually trying to improve the article instead of discussing notability. Just added a paragraph with reliable sources to the article. I used this cutting edge website called "google". Tigerboy1966 17:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Jimmy Cable was purposefully created with a very basic article as a test case as he fails to meet any of the the 7-WP:NBOX commandments, thanks for your best efforts, but I think you'll find that Mdtemp/Papaursa are the arbiters of notability, though please feel free to upgrade another of my test cases; Nat Jacobs =;o). Best Regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, we have an editor whose draft on the "Nordic Fight Night" competition has been declined at AFC, who has taken issue with the Notability concerns. Could someone who is familiar with proper sourcing for boxing-related articles please swing by and help provide some expertise? Thanks!
Johnny Prescott, well known boxer in Birmingham in the 1960s and 1970s
I have just declined an article submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Johnny Prescott (Boxer) on the grounds that the references provided do not demonstrate the individual's notability, and also I don't see he meets any of Wikipedia:NBOXING specifically. However, the accounts do seem to indicate he was rather well known in his era, so it would be useful if people from this project could look over the submission and see if additional sources can easily be found, or if he does seem notable. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I have recently taken part in an AfD discussion where I was berated and my talk page was targeted because I wanted to delete an article that I felt didn't meet WP:NBOX. Instead of attacking other editors, I thought it would be more constructive to discuss modifying the existing notability criteria for boxing. It does seem to me that the MMA/boxing ratio is out of whack, as I commented at an MMA discussion last year--"Given the long and illustrious history of American boxing there are 100 articles on American boxers, yet there are 842 articles on American MMA fighters for a relatively new sport." I looked at the notability criteria for kickboxers and martial artists (and I do think of boxing as a martial art) to try to incorporate their ideas. I started with the existing boxing criteria, and removed the one about television because I think in this era of a 1000 channels being on TV does not make an athlete notable. I also removed the one about end of the year awards since the performance in the ring is what matters, not some subjective criteria for knockout of the year. There's already subjectivity in using the various ratings. For the ratings, I added the major sanctioning bodies' own ratings. I also used a modified version of the martial arts criteria which says being a multiple medalist in a major international competition (they use several dozen competitors as a minimum) shows notability. For national professional titles I'm suggesting 2 fights to show significance. I've seen several admins comment that specific project criteria should be somewhat strict since WP:GNG is available to all. I used a cutoff of 12 fighters in amateur tournaments because it's half of the martial arts criteria and means 1/3 of the fighters would qualify (if you're not in the top third, are you really notable?). Of course, the Olympic competitors already qualify as notable. I'll admit to not following women's boxing so I'm not sure what changes, if any, should be made for them. As far as others involved in the sport, I used the kickboxing criteria.
At any rate, I am posting this set of criteria and my reasons in order to start a conversation and reach a consensus.
A boxer is presumed notable if there is documented evidence he:
Has fought for or held a world title (regular, interim, super, etc.) of one of the four major sanctioning bodies (IBF, WBA, WBC, or WBO) or a historic major sanctioning body (NYSAC or WBA);
Has fought for or held a specialty world title (e.g., duration world title, black world title, lineal world title, pre-sanctioning world title (e.g., pre-1920s), etc.); or
Has been ranked in the top ten or champion of any weight class by Ring magazine or by one of the aforementioned major sanctioning bodies; or
Too restrictive. There are many boxers who don't get to fight for national titles even who are notable. There are two boxing magazines available in my local supermarket that give regular coverage to British pro boxers who fall well outside these criteria, so if we're looking for boxers who likely pass WP:GNG (not that I think that's necessarily sensible) anyone with a significant pro record should be in. Anyone who has fought for a national title in a major boxing country once should definitely be in. The existing criteria are also horribly US-centric, as I have argued before. --Michig (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for getting the conversation going. It's not clear to me why you think my proposed criteria are U.S.-centric. Certainly there's nothing to show the rankings are biased, nor do continental championships or international amateur events seem U.S.-centric. I think claiming all professional boxers are notable is a bit excessive and I don't think fighting for a national title automatically confers notability. For example, there was a recent martial arts discussion about someone who fought for the female Muay Thai championship of Mauritania in something like her second amateur fight--I don't think that automatically makes her notable. Yes, I know we're talking boxing, but I hope you see my point. Note that someone who won a national title would almost certainly meet my proposed criteria since there would almost always be a title defense. As far as WP:GNG goes, it says that people meeting GNG are "presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". Although it's not a guarantee (see WP:NOT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE), I can't remember participating in an AfD discussion where someone meeting GNG was deleted. That's why I mentioned the admin comments in my original post. Admittedly, deciding whether or not a subject meets GNG can become a lively discussion. Perhaps you can propose something that's more inclusive than what I wrote, but less than "all pro boxers are notable". Papaursa (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say your proposed criteria are US-centric, I said "the existing criteria are horribly US-centric", but having said that Ring magazine is a US publication, and the 'International Boxing Hall of Fame" is a US organization, and 'NYSAC', well.... I didn't make any proposal that all professional boxers are notable (I said boxers with "a significant pro record", which would exclude boxers who have only fought on local bills or in minor boxing countries without reaching a significant level). I didn't say that fighting for a national title makes someone notable, I said "Anyone who has fought for a national title in a major boxing country once should definitely be in", which would quite obviously exclude someone fighting for a national title in a sport that isn't even boxing and in a country that is not a major boxing country. Perhaps you could re-read what I wrote. --Michig (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I did read what you wrote and I saw, at the time, all the things you just mentioned. I didn't see why you brought up the old guidelines when we're trying to get new ones. Past experience tells me how the statements you wrote can and do get misinterpreted in the ways I described. I was also hoping you'd be more specific about "major boxing countries" and what "a significant pro record" is. Those criteria, as you wrote them, are very subjective and will lead to arguments unless you can make them specific and objective. That is why I wrote my proposals in the manner I did. For example, perhaps for a significant pro record you can claim anyone with 40 sanctioned professional wins is notable. As always, the devil is in the details. Papaursa (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I like Papaursa's proposal because it gives objective standards for notability and expands the number of boxers who will be notable. I also haven't seen any other concrete proposals. Jakejr (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
The current notability guideline for boxers seems significantly more onerous that that of all other sports. The nearest comparable sport to boxing on the Wikipedia:Notability (sports) page is Mixed martial arts; Mixed martial artists are presumed notable if they:
Have fought at least three (3) professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization, such as the UFC (see WP:MMATIER); or
Have fought for the highest title of a top-tier MMA organization
The second criteria was only recently added, and it seems unlikely that anyone meeting criteria #2 would not have already met criteria #1, and 'three (3) professional fights' seems arbitrary and many other sports are defined as requiring only 'at least one' appearance. Consequently I would simply recommend that boxers are presumed notable if they:
Professional: Have fought a professional fight for a top-tier boxing organisation.
Amateur: Have fought in the final of a national amateur championship, or have represented their country in an international tournament.
To consider all professional boxers notable would make a mockery of the concept of "notable"--equivalent to claiming everyone in any profession is notable. To claim all boxing organizations are notable is equally silly. Note that very few MMA organizations are considered top tier. I don't think any other sport says an amateur competing at any international event is automatically notable. If you feel boxing's criteria are too tough, look at WP:MANOTE and WP:KICK--both (martial arts and kickboxing) are certainly related to boxing. Jakejr (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:MANOTE and WP:KICK certainly seem closer to the current WP:NBOXING than WP:NMMA does (as an aside, why don't martial arts, and specifically kickboxing appear on Wikipedia:Notability (sports)), but other sports have a 'appeared in at least one' match in a top-tier policy, including; American football/Canadian football, Association Football, Baseball, Basketball, Cricket, Ice Hockey, Rugby League, etc. Whilst noting that; not all MMA organizations are considered top tier, fighters in top-tier MMA are not solely from the USA or Japan, and MMA is shown on global television, this is no different to boxing bouts under the auspices of the British Boxing Board of Control, I previously indicated that to be considered top-tier organisation, the organisation must have its own Wikipedia article, and it appears that all 'top-tier' fights are recorded at BoxRec. According to Papaursa, there are '100 articles on American boxers, yet there are 842 articles on American MMA fighters' this is after only 20-years of MMA, but 150-years of boxing, this infers that American MMA fighters are 60-times more notable than American boxers, also there are 245-Category:Brazilian mixed martial artists, there only 45-Category:Brazilian boxers infers that Brazilian MMA fighters are 40-times more notable than Brazilian boxers, etc. etc. this clearly indicates that the MMA and Boxing notability guidelines are clearly not equitable. Best Regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I would agree that the other sports are too lax on their notability criteria and that their are too many MMA fighters compared to boxers. However, two wrongs don't make a right and it makes sense to me that the various martial arts disciplines have similar requirements. There are probably a lot of MMA fighters who have articles and don't meet WP:NMMA, but deleting articles is a long, slow ongoing process. Kickboxing and boxing are clearly the closest relations to each other. I have no idea why kickboxing and martial arts aren't listed at WP:NSPORTS. Jakejr (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has suggested that all professional boxers should be considered notable. Professional boxers range from World and national champions and title contenders right down to fighters who don't get beyond fighting on bills in local clubs. I wish people would drop all the comparisons with MMA etc. Boxing is a major sport that has received widespread coverage for more than a century. In terms of British boxing, boxers who reach the stage where they get to fight for a British title are certainly notable enough for an article here. Many who don't reach that level will also be notable given the number of publications that give coverage to boxing in this country. This guideline should reflect existing practice and consensus, and I don't believe that either the existing criteria or the proposed criteria above do that. Perhaps we should approach it from another angle and think about the pro boxers that should be excluded. As a starter I would suggest that we exclude boxers who fail all of the following:
Has not received sufficient coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG
Has not fought for a recognized World, national, continental, or similar level title (e.g. European, Commonwealth, African)
Has never been ranked in the top 20 in the world in their weight category by one of the major international sanctioning bodies
Has not competed in the Olympic Games or other major amateur championship
Has not won a major title at amateur level
A boxer who passes at least one of these will almost certainly be notable enough for an article, and any boxer who passes the second, third, fourth or fifth of these will almost certainly have sufficient coverage in existence to pass the first. This would exclude boxers who don't get to a level beyond area championships, for example, unless sufficient coverage exists to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
A quick comment--there is some redundancy in your categories. Anyone who won a major amateur title would have had to compete at a major amateur championship. It also would be nice to be more specific about what titles and organizations are "major" or "recognized". DynamoDegsy essentially did propose all professional boxers as notable when he said a professional bout for any organization with a Wikipedia page is automatically notable. I think it's also worth pointing out that on WP, boxing is part of martial arts--when I do a catscan of martial arts articles I get boxing ones, while the reverse is not true, so having similar notability criteria doesn't seem unreasonable. Papaursa (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
True, we could drop the last one. Regarding the titles and organizations, I think that would be a matter for further discussion if it looks like we could move forward with the principle. Yes, boxing is a martial art, but it is a sport where far more sportspeople are well-known than other martial arts, and since the guideline should be a rule of thumb giving guidance for when people are generally 'notable', criteria will quite properly vary from one sport to another. I don't think the above is too far away from your original proposal, by the way. While anyone meeting your criteria would certainly be notable, many who do not meet those criteria are also notable. This guideline should remain a rule of thumb, and while detail of titles and organizations that definitely are or are not 'major' would be useful if they can be agreed, we shouldn't aim for a black and white division here between 'definitely notable' and 'not notable'. There will always be a grey area where each subject should be evaluated on its own merits. --Michig (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree our proposals are similar and I wasn't trying to make NBOX as restrictive as MANOTE, I just wanted to show another perspective. I also didn't want to open the floodgates like I feel DynamoDegsy's proposal would. The advantage of "black and white" criteria is that it greatly reduces arguments, but common sense should never be banned. As was shown in the discussion on Nat Jacobs, GNG can be quite subjective. Papaursa (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
My proposal aimed for some sort of parity between boxing and the majority of global sports who have notability of; 'appeared in at least one' match in a top-tier organisation. However I believe the 'floodgates' should remain closed with a modified professional notability criteria of;
Professional: Have fought for a national (or higher) professional title for a top-tier boxing organisation.
Amateur: Have fought in the final of a national (or higher) amateur championship, or have represented their country in an international tournament.
DynamoDegsy, I assume this was your response and I like it much better than your earlier post. It has the advantage of simplicity, but I still have some qualms about it. That's probably because of my experience with articles claiming notability based on small competitions and international events not viewed as significant by their own sports organizations. Examples include women's champion of Mauritania and competing at the Small States of Europe games (apologies to my cousins in Luxembourg). I'm fine with professionals who fought for titles greater than national (or were ranked in the world top 10) and with amateurs who reached the quarterfinals of the world championships. Perhaps a compromise including professionals who've won a national title and amateurs who won an international (at least 4 countries) tournament? Papaursa (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
As mentioned previously, I would propose defining "a top-tier boxing organisation" as being those with articles defined within the List of boxing organisations article, and the Mauritanian Women's Boxing Association isn't on there (yet). Similarly, there are only ten national amateur boxing associations defined within the List of boxing organisations article, and the Fédération Luxembourgeoise de Boxe, and Federazione Pugilistica Sammarinese, aren't on there. How about...
Professional: Have fought for a national (or higher) professional title for a top-tier boxing organisation (as defined within the List of boxing organisations article).
Amateur: Have fought in the final of a national (or higher) amateur championship, or have represented their country in an international tournament organised by a top-tier boxing organisation (as defined within the List of boxing organisations article).
But there is no definition of "a top-tier boxing organisation" in that list. Your proposal above that "to be considered top-tier organisation, the organisation must have its own Wikipedia article" is too low a standard. --SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I've ameneded my proposal for the notability of boxers...
Anyone satisfying these criteria would I believe be considered notable, but there is the issue that people will look at this and decide that anyone who doesn't meet the above is not notable. Given that boxers often opt out of fighting for national titles because they wish to concentrate on pursuing a world title I think some criteria based on world ranking needs to be included. It should also be clear that many boxers who don't meet any of these criteria are notable enough to have articles (I can think of several boxers who may not have fought for national titles or above but have had fights on prime(ish) time TV on major channels in the UK and have received plenty of coverage). --Michig (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Michig, this appears like a sensible and fairly unambiguous guide to notability. I understand his concerns that people may think that anyone outside this list may not be notable, but all the other major sporting WikiProjects have their sets of guidelines which are mainly that, guidelines. I believe it will stop bun-fights between editors who have far better things to do and I think this topic has been discussed to a fairly intense and healthy degree. I give it my support. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I believe we're coming to a consensus. I do, however, still have a quibble with the amateur criteria. NSPORTS generally says competition at the highest level and I would suggest changing "international tournament" to "continental or higher tournament". (Frankly, I'd like to also add the criteria of winning at least 1 fight). I've seen plenty of tournaments that were international, but rather insignificant in importance. I think part of the problem is our perspectives. The New York City urban area has more people than all but 8 or 9 European countries, yet we would never consider the NYC championship to be sufficient to show notability. It's almost 750 air miles from Crescent City to San Diego and you never leave the state of California, the East Coast is equidistant from Moscow and Honolulu, etc. In other words, international events in Europe would be state or interstate events in the U.S. and not enough to even come close to showing notability. Papaursa (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
As we approach consensus, I've tweaked the proposal for the notability of boxers...
I would like to add (yes, add) one notability criteria for professional male boxers--Has been ranked in the top ten or champion of any weight class by one of the major sanctioning bodies (IBF, WBA, WBC, or WBO). Papaursa (talk) 05:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Did you envisage professional male boxers having to meet 1a. AND the "IBF/WBA/WBC/WBO top-ten ranking" criteria, or 1a. OR the "IBF/WBA/WBC/WBO top-ten ranking"? One concern with world-rankings is their transient nature, and the online availability of retrospective world-rankings, e.g. who were the top-ten middleweights in April 1983? Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 07:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
OR not AND (I am trying to be more inclusive). It's true rankings are transient, but so are world titles. Rankings could at least be checked going forward in time. Even the "big 4" boxing organizations don't have a lot of U.S. national champions, so world rankings would include fighters from countries that don't have national champions or countries with a number of top fighters in the same division. Papaursa (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Consensus... Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?
The pro criteria looks good, but amateur is more difficult. I am reluctant to assume notability for boxers who have fought for the amateur championship in many of the less competitive AIBA affiliated countries. Can we make a distinction between countries that have a high level of amateur competition and places like Monaco (AIBA affiliated), that don't?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Flattery will get you everywhere **flutters eyelids**, let's go for it...
1a. Professional (Male): Have fought for a national (or higher) professional title for the International Boxing Federation (IBF), World Boxing Association (WBA) (and its predecessor the NBA), World Boxing Council (WBC), World Boxing Organization (WBO), or affiliated organisation, for example; WBA-affiliated (BUI, PABA), WBC-affiliated (ABCO, BBBofC (and its predecessor the NSC), EBU (and its predecessor the IBU), NABF, OPBF), WBO-affiliated (NABO), or historical organisations, for example; NYSAC, or have been ranked in the top-ten of any weight class for either the; IBF, WBA, WBC, or WBO.
I hate to throw spanners anywhere near any works at this stage in the game, but what of the professional boxers before the exsitence of the named boxing organisations. Are we stating that the WBA also includes the 'National Boxing Association' which was its forerunner. ...And that only takes us back to 1921. Also an organisation such as the BBBofC existed as the National Sporting Club prior to its formation. Just to be clear, are we stating that the prior organisations which ran national and international fights are also valid for this criteria to take into account the earliest fighters? FruitMonkey (talk) 12:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Only issue I have is with Amateur where it says "have won one (or more) bout(s) representing their AIBA affiliated country in a continental (or higher) tournament." I question the need and appropriateness for winning the match. For need, I think if an athlete goes to a continental or higher tournament, then that would get coverage or not. I don't think winning a single match would cause enough notability to change their status. For example, Babou Smaila of Cameroon (a non-medal winner) won one match at 2011 World Amateur Boxing Championships in the light welterweight division. This win moved him from the round of 128 to the round of 64. Does this win really change the presumption of notability? To me, either he is notable for going to the AIBA Worlds or not (to me he is). I think winning one bout is arbitrary and does not change the status. I know some of the goal was for continental level events, but the same argument could be said for someone like Mario Bernal of El Salvador (see Boxing at the 2011 Pan American Games – Middleweight). I just don't see how winning an early round match would be what changes the presumption of notability. For appropriateness, I think this conflicts with the overall standard of "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level." Not only do I think a conflict is bad in general, but I also don't think boxing needs to be held to a higher standard than something like wrestling. In summary, I think mere participation is enough. If people think that is too low of a bar, then I would say participation at the world championships or earning a medal at a continental competition. RonSigPi (talk) 13:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
There was a change from "international tournament" to "continental (or higher) tournament" at some point in the development of the notability proposal, so I agree that there's no longer a need to "have won one (or more) bout(s)", so I've cheekily changed the proposal above. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I was making this article and I realized that it was really HARD to find sources on how boxing matches are scored: the ten point must system, adding up points, how many judges are there, how many judges scorecards must concur to determine a result, etc. Can anyone help? –HTD16:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear boxing experts: This old abandoned Afc submission is about to be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable boxer, and should the article be kept? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Popular pages tool update
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 04:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand why this was declined. The person who declined it says it fails WP:NBOX. But it does pass WP:NBOX since the boxer fought for a world title, which is 1a. in WP:NBOX. Also there are several independent reliable sources in the article even though he says there isn't. Coasttocoast (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
What do you suggest? I can create the article without submitting it to AfC, then we'll see if its get challenged. I also think it satisfies WP:NBOX as Dierry Jean fought Lamont Peterson for a world title. Permafrost46 (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear boxing experts: Does the boxer in this old Afc submission pass notability, and should the article be improved instead of being deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 04:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Flag usage on sports articles
A discussion has begun to outline usage of flags on sports articles and to review their usage. Sports articles have long diverged from what is stated in the manual of style. Please comment on the proposals and add suggestions by contributing at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. Thanks. SFB13:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Notability via Ring magazine rankings
It's been pointed out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nino Valdez that Ring magazine is not listed among the organizations whose ranking insures notability. I think that was simply an oversight, but what do others think? Seems like it should be added to the list. It may have some problems, but I think it's as good or better than the rankings created by the various organizations.Mdtemp (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Under the old guidelines RING rankings was listed. To my understanding/memory, when the old guidelines were re-evaluated the complaint with RING rankings was that it was a US publication and, along with other specific guidelines, the overall tone of the guidelines were too US-centered in a sport with global appeal. Thus, the RING rankings were removed in favor of the rankings of the recognized sanctioning bodies. Not saying RING should or should not be listed, but I figured this info may be useful. RonSigPi (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
If we can be confident that anyone ranked by Ring magazine would be sufficiently significant for an article then in my view we should add it to the guideline as an additional alternative. There may be other publications from other countries that should also be included - I know world rankings are published in at least one British boxing magazine, for example, but I'm not sure where they're sourced from. Anyone highly ranked at world level by any reliable source is going to merit an article. --Michig (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
My concern is that anyone can publish a world ranking. Ring has the advantage of a long history. For MMA, it seems like every website has their own rankings or subrankings like top prospects. I'm not sure I want to reopen the notability discussion.Mdtemp (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Boxing News has been around since 1909 and publishes a world top 10 in each weight. Please let's forget about MMA here - it has very little relevance to boxing. --Michig (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Not that it matters, but I wrote the original guidelines pretty much solo. The reason I like RING rankings is that they are historical and give support for older fighters like Valdez. I would be in support of adding major national publication rankings from major nations. I have no ideas what the magazines would be for the UK, Australia, South Africa, etc., but I am sure we can come up with a solid list. The magazines/publications would have to be unbiased and major. RonSigPi (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Nino Valdez did win a national professional title, i.e. the Cuban heavyweight title, so he would meet WP:NBOX if the organisers of the Cuban titles were considered a historically significant organisation, or were affiliated to either of the; IBF, WBA, WBC, and WBO, he also he fought for a World Heavyweight Title recognised by Nevada who could be considered a historically significant organisation (the Nevada State Athletic Commission still exists). In any event, it appears Nino Valdez meets WP:GNG. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I saw that, but I have no idea why Nevada didn't recognize Marciano as the champ and found that title kind of bogus. As far as magazines go, I'd be willing to include any boxing magazine with a long history (say 1960 or earlier) that people would consider an independent reliable source. My choice of date is somewhat arbitary (over 50 years), but gives you an idea of what I'm talking about.Mdtemp (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Maybe select 1962 as the year since that is when the WBA became the WBA [1] the WBC was founded in 1963 [2]. The basic logic can be that magazines that covered before the original current major sanctioning bodies (WBA and WBC) came into existence can be considered the authority. I have no problem with the rankings after 1962 being counted as well. RonSigPi (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Are the historic top-ten rankings as published in The Ring readily available, e.g. who, according to The Ring, were the top-ten middleweights in October 1964? Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk)
I have to say I'm not a big fan of the notability criteria of "...have been ranked in the world top ten of any weight class by the IBF, WBA, WBC, or WBO", and the addition of Ring magazine doesn't really alleviate my misgivings. My main concern with these the world top ten rankings is the apparent lack of access to these rankings on the internet, specifically the historic rankings. Because of this, I would personally prefer the use of the BoxRec all-time rankings. Perhaps the top 5% of boxers in any weight division in the BoxRec all-time rankings could be considered notable? Or because boxers frequently fight across weight divisions, perhaps any boxer scoring more than, e.g. 100-points in the BoxRec all-time rankings could be considered notable? For example, according to the BoxRec all-time rankings, the boxer discussed above; Nino Valdez is ranked as the 29th best Heavyweight of all-time, and scores 594-points, and so he would clearly be notable by either of these criteria. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I believe Gonzalo Omar Basile is notable, he is the current International Boxing Federation (IBF) Latino heavyweight champion, i.e. a national (or higher) professional title for a recognised organisation, also he has previously been the World Boxing Council (WBC) Latino heavyweight, World Boxing Organization (WBO) Latino heavyweight, and WBC Mundo Hispano heavyweight champion, and a challenger for the South American heavyweight, WBC Youth Silver heavyweight, WBC Baltic Silver heavyweight, and WBO Inter-Continental heavyweight titles. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear boxing experts: This boxer has claims to notability. Are these notable accomplishments, and should the old Afc submission be kept instead of being deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
Please help to find reliable sources to confirm if these individuals are alive or dead, or correct any mis-categorization on the relevant foreign-language article(s). Please see WP:LIVINGDEAD for more info and raise any issues on the talkpage. Thanks. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead18:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
The current WP:NBOX criteria are not clear on how Youth, Interim and Silver titles should be counted when establishing whether WP:NBOX is met. I figure Interim or Silver should count but I have no idea about Youth titles or even exactly what a youth title is. Youth titles are listed under professional fights (BoxRec) but again should they be listed as counting toward WP:NBOX.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I did look at; Youth, Interim and Silver titles, but I came to the conclusion that a Youth title may not guarantee notability, and that winners of Interim and Silver titles would have already achieved notability by fighting for a national (or higher) professional title. Indeed, Interim and Silver titles could be consider "(or higher)", as I believe Interim approximates to "world champion in waiting", and Silver approximates to "second best in the world". Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I went bold and inserted (non-youth) into WP:NBOX. Interim and Silver occur when the current champion is temporarily unable to defend his title so yes I agree they should be counted. For the same reason a fight for a vacant title should count - it is at the highest level.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The above conversation was only among two people and as can be seen from the deletion discussion the issue has not been clarified by the above discussion. That is why I put it out to the whole sports community. RonSigPi (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
At the AfD discussion I agreed with Papaursa's reasoning as to why interim titles do not automatically show notability. The interim title was at the lowest level that would show notability and was one in which there were 3 title fights, involving 6 different fighters, within a matter of months. Fighters kept winning the title and then were not given a chance to defend it. Jakejr (talk) 04:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I believe I clearly stated why I don't believe that interim titles don't show notability at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Jackson (boxer born 1986). This would be especially true for national or regional titles, which was the case in the aforementioned deletion discussion. For a world title, those fighters involved probably already meet WP:NBOX because they likely were already ranked in the top 10. Papaursa (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I also don't think that fighting for an interim title guarantees notability, especially at lower levels. Interim titles are not the same as regular titles and are frequently ignored even by the organization's that give them--after all, they can't have 2 champions in the same division.Mdtemp (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Interesting article - he looks like a piece of work - but I don't think he would be considered notable. The article itself says he has not a stellar amateur career.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I had his nationality included, British as per Boxrec and RS. Now its in the infobox as Northern Irish and removed from the lead along with the source. I have read over the archives here, and as far as I am a where British should be the one given. Any imput on his subject would be grateful on the articles talkpage. Murry1975 (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm looking at this draft Draft:Sailor Fred Fritts (needs a lot of formatting work), and it appears his main claim-to-fame is winning the US Navy Heavyweight title around 1918 or so. Does that meet overall WP:N? He seems to get mentioned in media of the time, including NY Times, and one of the few hits on gBooks is a modern box of boxing history which appears to reference him as a known historical figure. Thoughts? If someone can post a brief comment at article top, that'll help out other reviewers too. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
No. I cannot see winning a title for a military service branch being enough to meeting WP:N or more specifically creating a new guideline in WP:NBOX. That being said, this individual fighter may very well meet WP:N by way of meeting WP:GNG. The article has the Aberdeen cite and the gBooks cite. You mention the NY Times, but I am not seeing that ref in the article. If that does exist, that would help. I also think it helps that it is the heavyweight title which is historically often the premier division and thus receives the most coverage. Plus, he won the title as the world was entering World War I, which is an era that may have had more coverage for military sports. So in short, the mere fact that someone wins the US Navy Heavyweight Champion does not presume notability, but this specific sailor may be notable. RonSigPi (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Heather Clark
Apparently Heather Jo Clark or Heather Clark (fighter) indulged in pro hockey and pro boxing. She has a boxing record seehttp://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=609060&cat=boxer . Would this be sufficent to make her notable. Dwanyewest (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
The category Male martial artists was just created along with Male boxers, male judoka, male ..... Is it just me or does this seem a little over the top. Female I can understand as a descriptive subset.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear boxing experts: Is this old AfC submission about a notable fighter? Should it be kept and improved instead of being deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, DynamoDegsy. I have postponed the deletion for six months to give time for someone to improve it. I was having trouble finding anything about her on the internet until i tried changing the spelling to "Shin Hee". —Anne Delong (talk) 11:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Transnational Boxing Rankings Board
It seems that this body keeps being removed from Template:World boxing champions. I noticed this only because a brand-new editor removed it almost immediately after I cleaned up the template. I have no interest in boxing, nor in the question of whether or not this body belongs in the template, but I reverted its removal because the change was made without explanation. Such changes should be discussed on the template's talk page: Template talk:World boxing champions. --NSH002 (talk) 09:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your concern, it was probably just an occasional new editor. I took a look and everything seems to be ok for now. – Joaquin008(talk)10:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject X is live!
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Hello, this article was created with no content, and I'm struggling to add to it / work out if he meets WP:NBOX. I'd b e grateful if anyone can help with it. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 08:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
First, I'd like to say I'm a boxing expert with over 40 years of managerial experience in professional boxing. I've managed numerous amateur and professional world champions. I would like to be here for any assistance with questions and offer any advice (if needed).
Secondly, I created my first wiki page, of many I plan to work on. However, This page has been nominated for deletion and I have hopes that someone experienced can chime in and help me keep this page alive. (not because I worked hard on it and created it, but because I feel Ryan meets the notability requirements. One in particular is number #4 "Has fought, as an amateur, in the final of a national amateur championship for an International Boxing Association/Association Internationale de Boxe Amateur (AIBA) affiliated and World Amateur Boxing Championship"
Ryan has fault in many final national championships and international duels. Of these tournaments. The most significant would be the Under-19 National Championships and representing TEAM USA at the AIBA World Boxing Championships https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/AIBA_Youth_World_Boxing_Championships.
I feel age shouldn't be a consideration in determining eligibility but rather the accomplishments he/she has done. Per the Wikipedia notability requirements it doesn't mention anything about age, only the accomplishments.
Age is not an issue in itself, but the current WP:BOX requirements, require that achievements have to be in competitions open to all ages. As far as I'm aware, no other boxer has achieved Wikipedia notability on the basis of AIBA Youth World Boxing Championships participation alone, e.g. Tyson Fury, Christian Hammer, Ricky Hatton, and Shane Mosley. Ryan Martin is 21, about 18-months into his professional career, he's currently 12-0-0, and is ranked 139th in the world, so he's still got plenty of time to become Wikipedially notable. Best Regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
West Australia State light heavyweight title notable?
Professional boxing records / overlinking / flagicons
On these lists, is it necessary to link things every time for each fight? I have thus far avoided doing so because of redundancy, but I have seen IPs vehemently insisting (albeit without any rationale via edit summaries) that opponents, titles, weight classes, locations, cities, and even countries be linked every single time. Also, flagicons—must they be displayed on the record? I've had a few edit scuffles on whether flags are necessary (I completely disagree with their use in the context of professional boxing), so what is the opinion here? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The same thing doesn't need to be linked for every fight - where the same thing appears multiple times I would just link the first one. For opponents I think a sensible approach would be to link ones with articles and notable ones without articles - where there's no current article I usually look over their record on boxrec and see if they would be considered notable enough from their record (e.g won/fought for national/international/world titles), and if so link them. --Michig (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
How about in the case of George Groves, who fought Carl Froch twice? On Groves' record I have made it a point to not to link Froch twice, especially because his name appears successively on that list. However, many IPs have insisted on linking Froch twice. I consider that overlinking, but maybe WP considers it best practice for repetitive lists? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi guys! I was wondering if anyone would be interested in fleshing out the article for Gary "Spike" O' Sullivan. I'm really not familiar with boxing in the slightest or even really with WP:NATHLETE, so I figured that it'd be a good idea to ask for help in expanding and sourcing this. I came across it as a speedy deletion but I'd found some sourcing to suggest notability. I'm not sure if he'd pass NATHLETE, hence my coming here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)04:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking of making an article on him. The problem is he never ever fought for a major title or a regional one. But I think his 200+ fights in his era (70's and 80's) against the likes of 7 Hall of Famers, 14 world champions and several top contenders makes him a remarkable case. So should I? Antonio Boxiloco Martin (haw haw) 01:29, May 29, 2015 (UTC)
I have no problem supporting this individual. One of the most travelled boxers in history with an incredible number of professional bouts and he was Latin American champion. Not creating an article on this fighter would leave a big gap in boxing history. FruitMonkey (talk) 00:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Can this be included ASAP or needs to simmer for a few days so Floyd has a chance to address these pacquiao fight allegations?
Surely this counts somewhat as spam/advertising? Of what relevance is it, in a set of introductory paragraphs, as to who promotes or trains a fighter? If they're notable, mention them somewhere in the professional career section, but not off the bat. Can we get a guideline set on this? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree. I'm reluctant to set a hard and fast rule, but it is rarely important enough that the promoter or trainer should be mentioned in the lead.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
At least if they're hugely notable like Angelo Dundee, Eddie Futch or Cus D'Amato, but even they are not mentioned in the leads of Ali, Frazier and Tyson. I recently cleaned up the lead for Chris Algieri, after someone tried adding John David Jackson and Joe DeGuardia's Star Boxing to the lead. Surely "no, just no" for that? Same goes for PBC as well—I'm seeing that quite a lot, which just smacks of advertising. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Fight articles
A deletion discussion is going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wladimir Klitschko vs. Bryant Jennings. The reason I bring this up to the Project is the tone of that discussion seems to be going in a direction on what fights qualify as deserving an article. As it stands, many title fights have their own articles - not only in the heavyweight division, but other divisions (e.g., all Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather, Jr. fights for the past seven years). The outcome of this AfD seems likely to influence 100s of boxing fight articles. WP:SPORTSEVENT isn't really well suited for boxing fights, MMA cards, or other "event" type sports (e.g., the Kentucky Derby). Depending on how this AfD goes, it could have a strong influence on other boxing fight articles. Thought this was appropriate to bring to the attention of the Project. RonSigPi (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
If it's an IBF/WBA/WBC/WBO/Ring title fight, and it's had a decent amount of coverage, then I see no reason not to have separate articles. Instead, what should be established is a definitive (and hopefully rigid) style guide for such articles. Why are people still formatting "lineal" as "Lineal"? It looks utterly absurd. Likewise the constant capitalisation of "Champion/Championship", or using "&" to separate titles. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
