Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Litzau


 * 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    Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 12:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Allen Litzau

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Allen Litzau is not a notable boxer. He has not won a championship, he has a mediocre record, and he has no notable amateur achievements. MKil (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There's a difference between notable and famous.  Per WP:ATHLETE, as a professional boxer, Allen Litzau has "competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing."  And a record of 13-3 isn't exceptional, but it isn't mediocre, either. Brain Rodeo (talk) 03:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that standard really means much for boxers. It could be argued (and it seems that you are arguing here) that any professional boxer meets that standard by virtue of getting paid to box. Doesn't the athlete actually need to accomplish something notable, like win a world title or perform at the highest level of the sport? Is just receiving a paycheck in return for stepping into the ring an accomplishment that earns one an entry here?
 * Let me ask this, then, if a boxer like Litzau who has done absolutely nothing of note in the boxing world is worthy of an entry, which boxer is not worthy of an entry?MKil (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)MKil
 * No, a boxer doesn't need to win a world championship to be notable. He needs to be a fully professional fighter, and Litzau is.  For comparison, look at a professional baseball player like Steve Lake.  He was an unexceptional player and he never won a championship, but he was a fully professional athlete who passes the notability test.  And who isn't worthy of an entry in Wikipedia?  Given the relatively generous terms set out in WP:ATHLETE, my rule of thumb (admittedly subjective) is that notable pros must be champions or former champions, contenders or former title challengers, undefeated prospects, participants in notorious events, or anyone else who won at least 75% of their bouts.  Others I consider on a case-by-case basis. Brain Rodeo (talk) 06:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Brain Rodeo spells it out nicely. Edward321 (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, Allen Litzau only qualifies for an entry based on the criteria that he has won 75% of his bouts. He has never won a title, he has never challenged for a title, he has never participated in a "notorious event" (whatever that means), and he certainly isn't an undefeated prospect. The guy is a medicore boxer who may be famous in the Minnesota area but isn't notable outside of it. If Wikipedia is to have entries on every boxer who has a winning record it would have entries on a number of boxers who are not notable at all. Looking at Brain Rodeos's entries, it seems that he/she has an interest in boxers who are Minnesotans. Fine. But just because a few guys are famous in the in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area does not mean they are worthy of an article on Wikipedia.
 * Anyone famiiliar with boxing knows that it's easy for a boxer to build a winning record against stiffs. It's hardly notable to have a winning record as a prospect. Allen Litzau's brother, Jason Litzau, probably qualifies for an entry here based on his performance on HBO and his mention in Ring magazine. As a boxing fan, I have a hard time seeing how Allen Litzaua qualifies. He has accomplished absolutely nothing as a professional boxer. The only qualification for him being on Wiki is that he has received compensation for fighting professionallly. There are literally over a million people who have that qualification (check Boxrec.com). Being a professional boxer does not mean you should have a Wiki entry. Allen Litzau has accomplished nothing as a professional (or amateur) boxer). I have seen no evidence as to why he should be listed here.MKil (talk) 07:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)MKil
 * I took your advice and looked at Boxrec.com. I see that Boxrec currently has Litzau ranked as the ninth best professional super featherweight boxer in the US out of 85.  Litzau has won 81% of his fights, 8 of his 16 opponents had a winning percentage of .500 or greater (I'm generously excluding three who were making their professional debuts), and one of his victories was against an undefeated prospect (Darby Smart, 8-0 at the time) for the Minnesota state featherweight championship. Brain Rodeo (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You didn't mention that he's ranked as the 137th best super featherweight in the world. And two of his losses came to guys with records of 9-5-1 and 9-5-2. The last guy he beat had a 4-3 record. He is not a contender. He is a mediocre fighter who mainly fights out of Minnesota and has made absolutely no impact in the boxing world.MKil (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)MKil
 * You're getting no argument from me about whether he is a contender. And we evidently disagree about what the word mediocre means.  I think I already made it pretty clear, I don't consider contender status a prerequisite for inclusion in Wikipedia, and neither does (I'm repeating myself) WP:ATHLETE. Brain Rodeo (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. per WP:ATHLETE, WP:N and WP:V. The article needs references, but they are available - for example, he's received coverage in various general news media reports, such as The Corpus Christi Caller-Times; and in specialty boxing online news venues, such as minnesotaboxing.com and fightnews.com. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- Ned Scott 07:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.   -- Ned Scott 07:31, 20 August 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.