Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Dubois (boxer)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) — Yashtalk stalk 06:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Daniel Dubois (boxer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable boxer - does not come close to meeting WP:NBOX. This was a contested PROD with the proviso that GNG is easily met. I don't think it is. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. Where did you look for coverage to determine whether WP:GNG is satisfied and what did you find? --Michig (talk) 08:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. A few minutes of Googling rather than a knee-jerk reaction to a prod being removed could have found the following coverage:, , , , , , , , , , . --Michig (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: All sources identified above are notable, and it is clear that this is a notable boxing player. Would consider withdrawing this nomination, as I can't see any reason to continue with this AfD? TheMagikCow (T) (C) 11:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment How is this a notable boxer with only 2 professional fights and no fights (either professional or amateur) that would go any way to meet WP:NBOX. The coverage only goes to show his promoter is actively doing their job.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The WP:NBOX is a guideline, and if WP:GNG is met, but WP:NBOX is failed that article is still notable. I feel it has been shown that WP:GNG is satisfied. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 19:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: The sources identified were notable. I find it strange that this article was even nominated for deletion! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: per sources provided by Michig (good job!). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources listed above by Michig. Lepricavark (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2017 (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.