Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Floyd Mayweather vs. Juan Manuel Marquez


 * 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) → B  music  ian  22:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Floyd Mayweather vs. Juan Manuel Marquez

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This event fails WP:NOT and WP:EVENT as there is no demonstration or indication that the event has any enduring notability. BearMan998 (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - A fight between two of the biggest names in the sport who are both multi-division champion that received world-wide coverage is clearly notable and I would argue meet WP:SPORTSEVENT. -- KTC (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note - I would argue the multiple nomination by BearMan998 of boxing fight articles as WP:POINT disruption as a result of deletion of UFC events articles. KTC (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Note - Based on the circumstances I would say your argument is fair and in good faith, however, your accusation is wrong in this case as I have read and reviewed WP:NOT and WP:EVENT after I made those comments and I am now in agreement that based on Wikipedia's policies as such articles are indeed not fit for inclusion on Wikipedia, at least not standalone articles for such events and therefore should be removed. Everything that is stated in the notability guidelines states that these articles are not fit for inclusion. Besides, this fight itself already is summarized quite nicely on the Floyd Mayweather, Jr. and Juan Manuel Marquez articles. As for notability, it was notable when the event occurred, however, I fail to see this event as having enduring notability. BearMan998 (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also review WP:NOTTEMPORARY: notability is permanent. Dricherby (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Per WP:EVENT "Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." Additionally, "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." BearMan998 (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Speedy Keep ‣ I am personally bewildered by the popular fixation with spectator sports but WP:EVENT says "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards..." and coverage such as the ESPN and NBC links currently in the article and copious Google Books and Google News hits for "Mayweather Marquez" searches show that this event was tediously analyzed and re-analyzed by media and authors the world over, utterly the opposite of "without further analysis or discussion". If the nominator has been submitting articles with similar levels of coverage to AfD en masse (and I say so without prejudice, having not investigated the other articles under AfD) this is edging into WP:SPEEDYKEEP territory. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 18:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG, and has received significant coverage in diverse reliable sources. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - All sources listed are either a WP:PRIMARYNEWS source or WP:ROUTINE coverage of the event so it doesn't actually pass WP:GNG. BearMan998 (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That is patently untrue. I have added the search I described to the top of this AfD, a Find sources template for "Mayweather Marquez", and it returns hundreds of Google Books hits and thousands of Google News hits.  You have not looked at more than a tiny fraction of them.  Here's a 2012 book on marketing treating it as a notable event, for Pete's sake. Changing my !vote to Speedy Keep because this is a frivolous nomination. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 03:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Then why don't you add these "sources" to the article in order to verify that this fight hold enduring notability? Saying all this doesn't improve the article at all. As it is, all sources within the article are either WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources or WP:ROUTINE coverage and there is nothing in the article to show that it demonstrates enduring notability. As a result, it is a candidate for deletion. BearMan998 (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Information.svg Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Northamerica1000(talk) 14:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I initially refrained from expressing my suspicion that this nomination, and others made at the same time, were disuptive nominations of sporting events with world-wide enduring notability made in retaliation for previous deletions/mergers of articles about a very minority-interest pseudo-sport, but this discussion has convinced me that that suspicion was correct. You are simply ignoring the evidence that the world at large considers top-level professional boxing far more notable than your personal fanboyism. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the deletion of any articles failing the policies of Wikipedia and have placed votes to delete MMA articles as well including UFC 150 so take your conspiracy theories elsewhere. Now with that said, this article does not demonstrate any enduring notability. BearMan998 (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also as for the claims that this fight generated hundreds of Google Books hits, you might want to actually take a look at those hits and you'll find that they're all mostly irrelevant hits. As for the thousands of Google News hits, those are all WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources or WP:ROUTINE coverage of the event. BearMan998 (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason that no one is adding the sources that you yourself linked to via the find sources template at the top of this AfD when you created it, BearMan998, and the reason that the specialized search links are created in the course of the default AfD nomination process, is that AfD is not cleanup. This isn't a venue for some editors to goad other editors into working on particular articles, it's a place to evaluate and discuss deletion arguments and articles on their merits.  Wikipedia's concept of notability is a property of the topic itself, not the article: a poorly-written or poorly-sourced article at Wikipedia does not make the topic of that article non-notable.  And as Dricherby pointed out to you above, notability is not temporary, so you can stop talking about "enduring" notability as no one is going to accept the ad hoc amendments to Wikipedia principles you've contrived and are trying to apply here to get your way. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 00:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You act as if I am making up the concept of enduring notability. Per WP:NOT, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." BearMan998 (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The way you answered that comment exemplifies your basic approach here, to ignore everything that does not get you what you want. As if the only sources available are routine news reporting like the sports scores mentioned in WP:ROUTINE.  Yes, you are making things up.  Please throw your tantrum somewhere else. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 05:10, 29 May 2012 (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.