Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of left-handed boxers


 * 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) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 15:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

List of left-handed boxers

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Six items is not a list, particularly when the only source is of dubious notability. This is borderline WP:PUTEFFORT failure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ̶K̶e̶e̶p̶ Redirect and Move Contents to List of Southpaw Stance Boxers - No valid reason given for deletion. WP:PUTEFFORT is an essay, not a policy.  This particular list serves the purpose of navigation (per WP:LISTPURP).  If the nominator believes that more work should be put into a particular article, he can improve it via editing.  This list can easily be added by making use of google and the many many sources available:.--Stvfetterly (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've added a couple more boxers to the list and formatted the page to look a bit nicer, so it should be very obvious now that there's no reason to delete the article.--Stvfetterly (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Fairly shockingly incomplete, which I take it is the primary objection of the nominator. The question at AfD, however, is whether a nominated page is worthy of inclusion under notability rules. Left-handedness has historically been regarded as one of the most important facets of the fight game, along with weight division. It seems pretty clear that the subject itself is encyclopedia-worthy. Consider this a stub list — to be improved through the normal editing process, not deletion. Carrite (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Wouldn't a list of southpaw boxers be more relevant? As the Southpaw stance article (which already contains a list of southpaw fighters) points out, the stance favoured by boxers does not always correspond to whether they are right or left handed. --Michig (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The list in Southpaw stance contains fighters from many different martial arts (Muay Thai, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, MMA, Kung Fu, even the NHL for some reason). It is much broader in scope than a list of lefty boxers and could easily be overrun with entries from various martial arts.  It makes sense to me to have a seperate article specifically for boxing.  --Stvfetterly (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * but should we have a list of left-handed boxers or a list of southpaw-stance boxers?--Michig (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * now I get what you're talking about . . . yeah, changing the title to 'southpaw-stance boxers' would probably make more sense. A redirect from 'Left-handed boxers' to the article would make sense I think. --Stvfetterly (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In keeping with this idea I've created a duplicate article "List of Southpaw Stance Boxers" and will change my Keep to a vote to move content.--Stvfetterly (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a good idea. A WP:MOVE would have been better than copying and pasting by keeping the edit history attached to the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, seems I've made a bit of a mess of this one. Can we get an admin to move the page to "List of Southpaw Stance Boxers" once the AFD is closed?--Stvfetterly (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Yes, this needs to close Keep first; then moving the category to a new name should happen with the MOVE THIS PAGE link to preserve the history. I do concur that the key aspect making this a relevant list is the stance, not which hand is used to eat peas and carrots with a fork. Carrite (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep There is no such thing as a PUTEFFORT failure, and no basis for deletion. . There is just an article that has not yet been developed, and there is no deadline for improvement. Had there been one, Wikipedia would have been dead long ago, because improvement usually comes very slowly and gradually.  DGG ( talk ) 09:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I won't say any more as I'm starting to channel Les Grossman. Warden (talk) 10:04, 4 February 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.