Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary Wohlman


 * 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. If GNG is met, then the SNG criteria don't matter. (non-admin closure) Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Zachary Wohlman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Has some significant coverage for GNG, however, notability is presumed, not guaranteed. Fails WP:ANYBIO/WP:NBOX; highest achievement in his career was a state level Golden Gloves championship. – 2 . O . Boxing  22:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just to clarify; I'm not saying NBOX and ANYBIO should be used to override GNG, I'm saying they are logical criteria to question the inclusion of the article as significant coverage does not guarantee notability. – 2 . O . Boxing  15:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  2 . O . Boxing  22:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions.  2 . O . Boxing  22:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  2 . O . Boxing  22:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: Whether the subject meets NBOX or ANYBIO is irrelevant; that he meets the GNG (to which both those criterions are subordinate), with coverage beyond routine sports coverage, is. The article's certainly overpromotional, but that's a content issue.   Ravenswing      11:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * GNG is not necessarily a reason to keep an article though, and I don't think NBOX and ANYBIO are irrelevant in cases like this; the specific criteria can help determine if a subject is actually notable within their field, which this one is not, regardless of the significant coverage.
 * ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article."
 * What makes this non-notable boxer merit his own article? Because he's had significant coverage? If we had articles on every person who has had significant coverage (especially boxers; prospects – which Wohlman was once upon a time – receive significant coverage early on but often go on to achieve nothing in the sport, as is the case for Wohlman, thereby making him a non-notable boxer) then Wikipedia would be filled with every Tom, Dick, and Harry who have had a few articles written about them.
 * This is where NBOX can help to determine if he actually merits his own article; has not competed, as an amateur, in the finals of a national tournament or represented his country internationally. As a professional, never won or challenged for any title and has never been ranked in the top ten of any major sanctioning body. Non-notable boxer that received coverage due to the fact he was picked out as a hot prospect by Freddie Roach.
 * "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful."
 * My main basis for this nomination is WP:NTEMP; he may have been considered notable at the time the article was created in 2011, but as time has passed his lack of actual notability has become apparent. – 2 . O . Boxing  12:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Mm, you're reading NTEMP exactly backwards: notability is not transitory. I agree that the subject has, so far, proven unimportant as a boxer, but the GNG doesn't take that into consideration.  What all the NSPORTS subordinate guidelines do is establish that someone who meets them is very likely to be able to meet the GNG.  That our sports-mad culture places inordinate importance on covering athletes is regrettable, but the GNG doesn't have an opt-out clause for athletes.   Ravenswing      14:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand what the specific notability guidelines are for, but in instances like this they can be reasonably used to gauge if an article is worthy of inclusion. As significant coverage only "creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article", I feel further discussion on why this individual merits an article is necessary. Yes, he has significant coverage, but why should he have an article? What has he actually done? What is he notable for? What are his achievements? If the answers are "Because he has significant coverage", "he was a professional boxer", "nothing", and "absolutely nothing", then I feel the article should be deleted. – 2 . O . Boxing  14:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: passes GNG. --HuntGroup (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not much of an "in-depth discussion" there. How about trying to answer some of the points above to try and give some validity to your vote? ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article, per WP:GNG. – 2 . O . Boxing  13:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep and also Delete (vote changed, I know this is an unorthodox !vote)
 * On the Keep side, I think these sources show he squeeks past WP:GNG: (I fixed this reference in the article),, , , . WP:BASIC allows for "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".
 * On the Delete side, I think makes a good case regarding the presumption is not a guarantee of notability. This has always been an important consideration for me. The sources are weak individually and it really only squeaks past GNG collectively. WP:NPEOPLE states, "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note" —that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"". On this basis, I believe the article fails notability. None of the sources indicate anything about the subject that would pass this criterion.
 * Because only Squared.Circle.Boxing replied to my comment and this is directed to him, I didn't strike and replace my whole comment as normal. If anyone wishes I would do so, I will revert, strike, and replace.
 * Original comment:  // Timothy ::  talk  05:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Modified comment:  // Timothy ::  talk  12:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not a question of if he passes GNG. The first sentence of my nomination says he passes GNG LOL GNG is not the be all and end all for including an article. This was supposed to be, per GNG (which I've quoted multiple times), an in-depth discussion to determine why the subject merits his own article. I think the fact that nobody has been able to give me a reason beyond "passes GNG", says it all really. I'll quote it again in the hopes that people may take the scope of GNG on board for any upcoming AfD they vote at, ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article. So, in this discussion, GNG is actually irrelevant. – 2 . O . Boxing  09:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I completely understand where you are coming from. I modified my vote above. Best wishes.  // Timothy ::  talk  12:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 10:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 01:01, 24 August 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.