Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweden Box Open


 * 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. Overall consensus herein is for deletion. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 11:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Sweden Box Open

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Defunct amateur boxing competition with no significant independent coverage. The references given are either about it being televised sometime or a list of results. I found nothing that shows this competition was notable for any reason.Mdtemp (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment The original notability tag was removed with the claim that this was a major European amateur event and sources were added. Unfortunately those sources did not live up to promise.  I would like to hold off voting to see if that editor can supply more convincing coverage.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong keep A major event. J 1982 (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you offer any proof of that?Mdtemp (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence this is a major/notable boxing event.Peter Rehse (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no significant independent coverage that meets WP:GNG and no indication that this was a major boxing event. Papaursa (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Svensk mediedatabas, here referencing SVT, is an independent source (also, I see no point of being so strict with the source being independent when it's no political/economic/philosophical/religious controversial statement). J 1982 (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 06:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete A little surprised relisted this since the only keep !vote in a 4 to 1 failed to even provide a valid policy based rationale. See arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Additionally, the sources provided, where two of them are barely even sources to speak of, one is simply a pie chart, do not provide a strong basis for WP:GNG and fall closer to run of the mill. Lastly, the event is defunct so it's coverage is at its maximum and therefore WP:LASTING comes into play.  Mkdw talk 08:01, 21 March 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.