Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laatekwei Hammond


 * 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. The consensus is that whilst the criteria at WP:NBOX are not technically met, the participants are happy for the article to exist nonetheless. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Laatekwei Hammond

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable boxer that fails GNG and NBOX. I could only find passing mentions in sports results, no significant coverage. -- 2 . O . Boxing  12:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  2 . O . Boxing  12:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions.  2 . O . Boxing  12:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions.  2 . O . Boxing  12:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, very poor article but had a significant career in professional career and was the national champion of a significant boxing nation which passes my view of notability for a pro boxer. --HuntGroup (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. WP:NBOX sets clear criteria that is not open to interpretation. He would have to have fought for a world title from a major sanctioning body (which he hasn't) or at the very least, have held (not just fought for) one of the regional titles listed here (which he hasn't). Whether he's had a somewhat significant career or not is irrelevant if he fails both GNG and NBOX. -- 2 . O . Boxing  17:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If winning either the WBA or the WBA European effectively gives notability then I think its only fair the winning BOTH the WBA and the WBA titles is enough to confer notability for me. --HuntGroup (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean, you must have made a mistake in your reply. I think you're trying to say you have an issue with the titles listed in NBOX? If that's the case then you'll have to raise that issue at the relevant talk page and gain consensus for any additions or removals. As it stands, the subject fails GNG and NBOX. -- 2 . O . Boxing  18:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, no mistake. The titles he won are notable. They might not be explicitly outlined in the list of titles on the NBOX page but that is just an error by omission. They simply need to be added. Stop nit picking. --HuntGroup (talk) 10:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not nit picking, its following NBOX. I very much doubt it's an "error by omission". Regardless, as my (and obviously yours seeing as you couldn't find any sources with significant coverage) before search proves, he fails GNG. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. "In accordance with the general notability guideline", Hammond is not notable. It's utterly irrelevant what titles should or should not be listed in NBOX. It wouldn't even matter if Hammond had fought for multiple world titles (satisfying NBOX), if he fails GNG then he fails GNG. Having a title or two added to NBOX won't change that. – 2 . O . Boxing  11:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The list of titles on NBOX that convey automatic notability isn't exhaustive or exclusive. Plus in my view he does pass GNG.--HuntGroup (talk) 11:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Nothing conveys "automatic notability". As it clearly states at the top of WP:NSPORTS, An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page, and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The key word being presumed. And as it also states at the top of WP:GNG, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Again, the keyword being presumed. I recommend you familiarise yourself with the notability guidelines before commenting at AfD discussions. Saying NSPORTS conveys "automatic notability" means you clearly haven't read them. Let's examine the sources: So in summary, one source has minimal significant coverage, nine are mere passing mentions, one is a BoxRec profile, and one is a WBO ranking. Fails GNG. You need to elaborate on how you think he satisfies GNG.
 * 1 is a passing mention
 * 2 is a passing mention
 * 3 is the only one that gives significant coverage. Per GNG; There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Since this source isn't exactly high quality and the depth is minimal, more sources with significant coverage are needed. I mean, if Hammond is indeed notable, that shouldn't be hard, right?
 * 4 is a passing mention
 * 5 is a passing mention
 * 6 is a passing mention
 * 7 is a passing mention. Yes, this one is about his fight with Witter, however, it clearly focuses on Witter and gives no significant coverage of Hammond
 * 8 is a passing mention
 * 9 is a passing mention
 * 10 is his BoxRec profile
 * 11 is a passing mention
 * 12 is a WBO ranking outside of the top ten (failing NBOX, by the way)
 * Keep: A notable player with referenve on multiple sites.Iitianeditor (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * would you mind providing some of these multiple references (not just passing mentions, significant coverage is required)? If not then it's a total fail in regards to WP:GNG. -- 2 . O . Boxing  17:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm including the websites here 1.https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/20144 2.http://www.fightsrec.com/laatekwei-hammond.html Iitianeditor (talk) 06:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Lol, The links you provided are record websites. Almost every licensed boxer in the world is listed on those two websites, they do absolutely nothing to establish any kind of notability. Please familiarise yourself with WP:GNG before participating in deletion discussions. As it stands, nobody can provide me with any sources to demonstrate notability, the subject does not satisfy GNG and fails to satisfy every aspect of NBOX. Non-notable boxer. – 2 . O . Boxing  10:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - nominator, please acquaint yourself with your responsibilities under WP:BEFORE. Note, compliance with BEFORE can be tricky for some topics - including individuals with non-European names, which are routinely transliterated in multiple ways.  If you don't know how to do the extra work to effectively search for RS for a topic then please don't nominate articles on those topics for deletion.  Geo Swan (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I assume you was expecting this, but would you mind providing the sources to establish GNG? As is common in AfD. I'd be happy to withdraw if GNG is established. Vaguely implying that you may have found sources isn't very helpful. -- 2 . O . Boxing  21:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , you mean more sources beyond the ten added by ? I see, above, you seem to have claimed Hammond doesn't meet the strict criteria of NBOX. HuntGroup wrote he won WBA titles.  You claimed you didn't understand his point.  Well, doesn't NBOX explicitly say winning a WBA title measures up to NBOX?  Geo Swan (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I mean sources that actually give significant coverage of the subject, per GNG. The sources HuntGroup added are exactly what I found in my BEFORE search; passing mentions or fight results, nothing that classified as significant coverage. I do not claim Hammond fails to meet the "strict" (there is probably around ten different regional titles within each major sanctioning body, most of which do not require even a top 20 ranking to obtain. So the criteria isn't really strict at all) criteria for NBOX, it is a fact. HuntGroup wrote a very vague reply that was clearly missing important information. I shall elaborate; fighting for a WBA world title (which Hammond has not) does indeed denote notability, per NBOX. However, fighting for any WBA title does not. Per NBOX (whether people like it or not), regarding the WBA, only winning (not simply fighting for) a Europe, Fedelatin, or Oceania title is deemed notable (because they are the most significant titles that the WBA have for those regions). None of which the subject has won (as I previously stated, Hammond has not won any title listed in NBOX). NBOX states that, for regional titles, a fighter has to have won one of the titles listed. Hammond has won the Ghanaian, West African Boxing Union (not to be confused with the African Boxing Union, which is listed), WBA Pan African, and the WBO Africa. None of which are listed in NBOX (for a reason). My question to you was; you implied there was something I missed in my before search that denotes notability through significant coverage, please provide the sources. I respectfully ask that you oblige. If not, then as has been established, the subject fails NBOX and GNG. Please aquatint yourself with NBOX, and provide references that satisfy GNG, or I respectfully request you strike your vote, as it will clearly be another unsubstantiated and subsequently invalid vote (not that it really matters, deletion discussions are settled by the substance of the argument, not the amount of votes one way or another). --  2 . O . Boxing  00:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: As per WP:Athlete, there are all these sports and numerous criteria. Some criteria are absolute, other criteria (particularly in other sports) exhibit white privilege. That is fellow is an African Boxer and does not scrabble by his fingernails into the WBO criteria calls for consideration and evaluation of biases. One failing at WBO ranking outside of the top ten does not denote lack of notabiity.  --Whiteguru (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your comment doesn't really make much sense. Hammond fails to satisfy WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. As I've asked everybody who has "contributed" their opinion, can you provide any sources that establish notability by meeting GNG (NBOX isn't up for debate, he fails all criteria)? Throwing the race card on the table is just, stupid lol – 2 . O . Boxing  13:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: As the close has been challenged by the nominator, I am relisting the discussion for another week.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per all the other policy based keep votes above, particularly Huntgroup. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * what policy based keep votes? NBOX isn't even debatable, he flat out fails to meet any of the criteria. For GNG there's only one source with significant coverage, and it's minimal. I don't see how one source with minimal significant coverage along with nine passing mentions satisfies GNG. What am I missing? – 2 . O . Boxing  14:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The consensus is keep, as was demonstrated by the first close. The four keep votes above all gave rational policy based reasons that do not agree with you. Please dont WP:BADGER this discussion any more. we already know what you think. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So, basically, one source with minimal significant coverage along with nine passing mentions does not satisfy GNG? Yea, I thought as much. Thanks for clarifying with such a valuable contribution :). – 2 . O . Boxing  14:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete quite simply fails WP:NBOX. As someone who has on multiple occasions unsalted pages of boxers who failed NBOX earlier in their careers but then much later met the criteria I'm close to the subject area. Maybe one day but for now NN. It's somewhat binary actually. Glen (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. NBOX might be ok for indicating a cast-iron guarantee of notability, but it's too hopelessly restrictive to be used as a rationale for deleting articles. As a multiple national champion, with regional titles and challenges for the Commonwealth title, the subject has clearly had a sufficiently significant career for inclusion. --Michig (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep there's much mention in 20-year old London papers ... the issue here on finding good in-depth stuff, is likely how long ago this was, and that he's from a small very-poor nation, without much Internet back then. Even finding western stuff from that long ago is a challenge, as it's old enough to not be on line, but not old enough to be widely and extensively archived. NBOX is a red herring, and isn't really relevant ... it's more a GNG issue. Nfitz (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: It certainly looks as if his successes have been quite widely covered in the printed press, even if these are not easily accessible via standard internet searches.--Ipigott (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2020 (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.