Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The distance (boxing)


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The distance (boxing)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Dicdef, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Adding a source was easy and it's not a dictionary definition. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename History of the length of boxing matches and expand that aspect. The present title is too dictdef'y. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. Wow. Colonel, you can't make this work. The phrase is used in a few books on boxing, yes, and that's it--enough to support a Wiktionary entry. The 'reference' you added is only a mention, and I am surprised that you didn't find this one--an entry from a dictionary of slang, if only to emphasize the DICDEF quality of the subject. The rest of the article has, really, nothing to do at all with the ostensible subject. It's a bad dictionary definition, with some unrelated stuff thrown in by way of synthesis. Oh, "the distance" is not a good search term (to be left after renaming), since more often than note that term means something like to the length of a fighter's arm, for instance. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you use the same arguments to delete the articles boxing ring, points decision or knockout? Turning these technical sporting details into articles is just a matter of doing a little hard editing work and I am confident I could improve any or all of them.  How does turning these into red links build the encyclopedia and assist our readers?  Per our editing policy, why shouldn't we merge this with Boxing, which already mentions this topic?  How is deletion superior to that way forward?  As I'm little busy right now, I shall tag the article for rescue and see if we can attract some editors with knowledge of the history of boxing. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - [Comment] - Dicdef?!?! Never heard that one before... This is an original essay, a dictionary definition of a slang term in verbose form... While one could write an encyclopedic article on the evolution of title fight duration over the years, this ain't it and doesn't pretend to try. Carrite (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's WP slang. Someone should write a Wikipedia article on it. Oh wait, see Dicdef. ;) Drmies (talk) 03:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This is not just a dictionary definition as the nominator says and includes both history and popular culture. However, at the time of the nomination, these were not made clear in the article as it was all one block of text--that's now been changed as I've broken it into sections. I've also added a bunch of sources. It's hard to find google results for "the distance" because of all the false positives, however, you can find tons of results for "the championship distance", which a specific type of boxing distance pertaining to championships, which has 23,400 results. I will continue to improve the article after this post. — Code  Hydro  14:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that the approach of the article be flipped — that a new article be launched called championship distance (boxing) or some such, that this be treated historically, and that the phrase "going the distance" be parenthetically defined and included in that presentation. That makes sense to me as an inclusion-worthy encyclopedia article and it should be easily sourceable to get past any potential notability challenge. The article is currently structured backwards, I think, as a dictionary definition of the slang phrase, followed by a hurried attempt to rationalize this with dribs and drabs of boxing history. Carrite (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2010 (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.