Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Germany at the 2011 World Amateur Boxing Championships


 * 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 delete. There was a reasonable-sounding proposal to merge all of these into higher-level aggregation articles which span years, but that didn't attract any support, so going with the straight delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Germany at the 2011 World Amateur Boxing Championships

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nations at the xxx pages are usually reserved for events with multiple sports or disciplines. This one focuses on just one sport. Also quoting Peter Rehse, from another similar AFD, "they are all a rehash of a single source. National results for events that are borderline notable themselves. Even there there is nothing demonstrating that [the country] performed anywhere near notable." Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions.   Flow 234 (Nina)   talk  01:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.   Flow 234 (Nina)   talk  01:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete As per above reasoning.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - it is an example of proliferation of sports statistics cruft that's best left for dedicated databases. Renata (talk) 01:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge. While I generally agree with arguments in favor of delete, I feel the best solution would be to merge the per-country-per-year articles into per-country articles (Germany at the World Amateur Boxing Championships, etc.). GregorB (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. None of those articles exist. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed they don't. However, every merge requires an extra amount of work. The real question is: should those articles exist? I don't see why not, given that the content is there already. GregorB (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2016 (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.