Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Kołodziej


 * 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 no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) — UY Scuti Talk  18:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Jan Kołodziej

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Fighting in WW2 doesn't make him notable nor does his various club boxing championships. The closest thing to notability was once winning two fights at an amateur Polish championship before losing. That might be enough to technically meet WP:NBOX but that criteria is so broad that I think either more boxing success or significant independent coverage is required to show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:NBOX. The guidelines exist for a reason.  The community has set that standard and I think it should be respected even if personal opinion is that it is too broad.  If the guideline does not work, then the guideline should be improved as opposed to just not following it - otherwise there is no point in having the guidelines.  I think this is the kind of article the guidelines work well for.  No editor is going to go to Poland and look-up mid-1930s boxing records to see if sources exist.  The presumption is that they do exist because WP:NBOX is met.  If someone wants to rebut that presumption, then by all means go to Poland and do first hand research to establish that the sources do not exist (reminder you need to be fluent in Polish to do so).  However, with WP:NBOX being met the article should stand unless show otherwise. RonSigPi (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would point out that the burden of proof is on those who claim notability, which you seem to want to reverse. In addition, you're asking to prove a negative which is generally not possible.  Do we even know if this was the Polish national championship?  He appears to fail WP:GNG, although I admit searching the internet for a pre WW-II fighter isn't necessarily conclusive.  Papaursa (talk) 03:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct, the burden of proof is on those that claim notability. This burden is met by showing that it is to be presumed that the person is notable by WP:NBOX being met.  Then the burden shifts for those that want to rebut the presumption.  To that, yes - one cannot prove a negative, but that is not being asked.  Making reasonable effort to show that the relevant sources were reviewed and nothing to establish WP:GNG was found is sufficient.  To make such an effort, I think one would need to search the above-mentioned time-appropriate Polish sources.  Until those are hard copy sources are actually checked and it is determined nothing is found, then I think we need to keep since the presumption is met. RonSigPi (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 09:45, 11 December 2015 (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.