Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delia Gonzalez


 * 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. Consensus is that the subject is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Delia Gonzalez

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:N, no results on simple google search or news, although a few in google images. Article appears to be securely in the realm of self promotion, completely unreferenced, adding a rescue tag as an attempt to assume good faith that this isn't a shameless self promotion article. Nefariousski (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Found a few results but nothing I'd call particularly reliable. There are a few ratings pages, but I don't know enough about boxing to know what is official and what isn't. Even if the article stays, it smacks of self-promotion and fails WP:NPOV. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 00:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the effort! My spanish is passable as is my knowledge of boxing and I came up with the same results.  I'm trying to check some boxing org websites that have results or titles pages that might not be indexed by google for something that hints at notability since that's the only real dealbreaker here.  I'll gladly help fix the NPOV tone of the article if some reliable sources can be found that establish notability.  Nefariousski (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added three sources that look to be independent and reliable from a search for 'chikita boxing'.  If you believe that women's boxing is notable, then you should believe that winning the WIBF World Bantamweight title in Las Vegas in 1995 qualifies for WP:N.  Edward Vielmetti (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep title is documented. Problem seems to be that 1995 events are a little old for Google to be a good test of the existence of sources. --Bejnar (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Six nag boxes at the top of this article!  Is that a record?  If you search for her name and "boxing" you do get a number of results.--Milowent (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete She's 13-9 with 5 draws, but one of the "best"? Better to delete this and start over if there's soemthing accurate worth saying. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article clearly needs a rewrite, and she's no Muhammad Ali; but as a professional boxer who has held an internationally recognized championship, she meets WP:ATHLETE. Wine Guy   Talk  10:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The article is severely POV, but sources have been added, and the contents is mostly verified minus the shower of peacock terms. Pcap ping  14:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. She is notable, and I just added some references. Samwb123T (R)-C-E 01:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * comment still only one real source and being that its the website of the boxing organization to which she belongs it doesn't do too much to support her Notability. She fails GNG considering that there's no significant coverage, she's iffy on the reliable sources since there's no real secondary sources to verify outside of her organizations webpage.  She fails on her sources being independent of the subject.  Considering that she was the "Champion" for one division of one organization doesn't meet WP:N for athletes because there are dozens of women's boxing organizations and multiple people that can claim to be the "world champion" for the exact same division of a sport because they belong to any number of different leagues. Nefariousski (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2010 (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.