- 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) Nordic Nightfury 07:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Muhammad Ali vs. Oscar Bonavena ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Also nominating-
Muhammad Ali vs. Al Lewis
Muhammad Ali vs. Bob Foster
Muhammad Ali vs. Jürgen Blin
Muhammad Ali vs. Rudie Lubbers
Not notable non-title fights.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof? 16:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ ( talk) 16:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 18:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Concerted effort by an editor to create stubs for every single Ali fight but really the ones listed above can make no claim to notability t justify their own article. They are already listed in the main article. Peter Rehse ( talk) 18:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Strong keep for all articles on Muhammed Ali fights. Most of Ali's fights were major news and major box-office at the time whether or not they were title fights. Those few fights that were not considered especially important at the time have grown to be so with the immensity of Ali's reputation. Ali is now considered by many not just the greatest sportsman of the 20th century, but one of its most prominent world figures. Is there policy against non-title fights? It shouldn't apply to Ali.
The articles are stubs but are well sourced and well edited and should be given a chance to grow. Spicemix ( talk) 18:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The articles seem to be well-sourced, and I don't think you can judge notability only on whether a fight involves a title. Ali's fights were generally well-covered, at the time and later on. I don't think the AfD submitter has made a thorough and thus convincing argument. I'm going to put the burden more on the AfD submitter to prove his case on each individual match. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Keep per Spicemix and Stevietheman, and the fact that the editor working on these pages, Soham321, has given a much-needed and much appreciated expansion to Wikipedia's collection on this legendary fighters career. Each article can and should be expanded, yet there is plenty of material to add to each page thanks to Soham321's extensive list of sourced material. Ali, who died recently, is one of the most honored men of his lifetime, not only in his home nation but throughout the world, and is honored for many reasons. I've been following the creation of this collection of pages on the Ali template, and have continued to be impressed by the dedication of the initial editor and the extent that Wikipedia's Ali collection has now grown. Instead of deleting these starter articles maybe we should all be designing those star-thank you templates to give to Soham321 for the work and research involved. And this nomination gives me another chance to thank him (Thanks!). Floatin' like a butterfly, Randy Kryn 19:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep all. Just as every book by a historically very significant author is considered notable per WP:NBOOK, so should every fight by the boxer almost universally agreed to be the greatest of all time and to be one of the greatest sportspeople of all time be considered notable. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 21:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Not every fight is
The Rumble in the Jungle, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper,
The Ring or
Boxing News. Lesser bouts are covered adequately in
Muhammad Ali#Professional boxing record.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 21:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- We don't decide notability by degree of reverence/importance. These are events well-covered by reliable sources. Not every subject has the same degree of greatness per our own or even the whole of culture's perspective. If we decide your way, then half (maybe more) of the Wikipedia would be up for deletion.
Stevie is the man!
Talk •
Work 21:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- I repeat, Wikipedia is
WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Football games are also "well-covered by reliable sources". By your line of reasoning, we should have an article on every
Cleveland Browns game, which would be a crime against humanity. This fight lacks
WP:PERSISTENCE.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 02:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)Comment: I would like Clarityfiend and others who voted to delete the Ali fight articles to take a look at the WP articles about boxing fights featuring Mike Tyson: {{ Mike Tyson}}. I would suggest that even the least notable of the Ali fights are more notable than most of the Tyson fights which have their own WP pages, at least with respect to the coverage of these fights in RS including books and articles. To give an example, the Ali vs Blin fight is being nominated for deletion, but an entire chapter is dedicated to Blin and the Ali-Blin fight in the book "Facing Ali". The Ali-Blin fight is also covered in a RS like the New York Times. In the Muhammad Ali vs. Oscar Bonavena article, the proding editor deleted three separate references i had given to articles from the New York Times pertaining to this fight. For two of these references he claimed in the edit history that they were irrelevant since they were published before the fight took place. (The third NY Times article, which actually reviewed the fight, was deleted by him on the ground of citation overkill.) But in my opinion the basic structure of a boxing fight article necessarily includes sections like "Background" and/or "Buildup" for the purpose of completeness.For the Ali fight articles, my vote is for Keep. Soham321 ( talk) 02:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's difficult to argue against the "crimes against humanity" of having articles on these well-covered one-off events involving one of the most well known individuals ever. Sheesh. The reality is that well-covered one-off events are covered normally in the Wikipedia despite any wikilawyerly thing you might bring up.
Stevie is the man!
Talk •
Work 11:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- I admit I'm wavering a bit, but I don't like the precedent that would be set. This would open the floodgates to
Sugar Ray Robinson,
Joe Louis,
Mike Tyson, etc. Where do you draw the line? Then, you'd have to include grand slam finals for
Roger Federer,
Rafael Nadal,
Steffi Graf,
Serena Williams, and so on and so on. What about
Seabiscuit's match race with
War Admiral?
Après nous le déluge. It smacks of
WP:INHERIT.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 01:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)As i mentioned in my earlier reply to you the Mike Tyson fight articles have already been created on WP: {{ Mike Tyson}} . Soham321 ( talk) 02:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- I admit I'm wavering a bit, but I don't like the precedent that would be set. This would open the floodgates to
Sugar Ray Robinson,
Joe Louis,
Mike Tyson, etc. Where do you draw the line? Then, you'd have to include grand slam finals for
Roger Federer,
Rafael Nadal,
Steffi Graf,
Serena Williams, and so on and so on. What about
Seabiscuit's match race with
War Admiral?
Après nous le déluge. It smacks of
WP:INHERIT.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 01:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's difficult to argue against the "crimes against humanity" of having articles on these well-covered one-off events involving one of the most well known individuals ever. Sheesh. The reality is that well-covered one-off events are covered normally in the Wikipedia despite any wikilawyerly thing you might bring up.
Stevie is the man!
Talk •
Work 11:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- I repeat, Wikipedia is
WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Football games are also "well-covered by reliable sources". By your line of reasoning, we should have an article on every
Cleveland Browns game, which would be a crime against humanity. This fight lacks
WP:PERSISTENCE.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 02:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- We don't decide notability by degree of reverence/importance. These are events well-covered by reliable sources. Not every subject has the same degree of greatness per our own or even the whole of culture's perspective. If we decide your way, then half (maybe more) of the Wikipedia would be up for deletion.
Stevie is the man!
Talk •
Work 21:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep all all of the article more reliable with the reference and should have been chance for the editor to improve the article. — Masum Ibn Musa Conversation 04:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep all. I think boxing is utterly rubbish and should be banned, and every mention of it deleted. Nevertheless the media world - especially at that time - thinks differently and that makes it notable in a wikisense. Agathoclea ( talk) 09:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 14:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Muhammad Ali#Professional boxing record all these fights are quite well covered in the Muhammad Ali#Professional boxing record and add very little additional to the reader's knowledge of the topic. If these were serious significant fights in Ali's career, they would be more than one or two line stubs. ww2censor ( talk) 17:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- I am the creator of all the stubs for these Ali fights. Now as you can see i have actually expanded on the stubs for some of the fights. For example, Muhammad Ali vs. Henry Cooper and Muhammad Ali vs. Chuck Wepner. This shows that the stubs can be expanded into full articles. I started creating stubs for the fights while giving sufficient RS (from books and articles) because i hoped to arouse sufficient interest in others to expand on the stubs and save myself the trouble of writing up all the articles. Soham321 ( talk) 18:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: After putting up five of the Ali fights for deletion in this page, the prodding editor
WilliamJE has now started nominating other Ali fight for deletion through separate (individual) AfD pages. I would suggest that for efficiency each Ali fight which the prodding editor would like to nominate for deletion should be put up in this page so that this issue can be resolved in a holistic and efficient manner. I would also suggest that the prodding editor risks exhausting the community's patience if he goes around nominating individual Ali fights for deletion on separate pages instead of on a single page (this page). If an Admin is reading this, i would like them to intervene at this juncture. We are here to create an encyclopedia, and any argument about whether a WP article(s) is suitable for deletion or not must be settled as efficiently as possible. I suggest that the AfD notices on the other Ali fights which the prodding editor has made be deleted immediately and those fights be included in this page. I am aware of
WP:BLUDGEON, but the prodding editor's behavior necessitates that i remind everyone that WP articles on Mike Tyson's boxing fights already exist. See {{
Mike Tyson}}.
Soham321 (
talk) 20:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- 1- Get an administrator if you want. I've broken no Wikipedia policy
- 2- You don't know what PROD means at Wikipedia. You have used it incorrectly six times just on this page alone.
- 3- As for Tyson articles,
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof? 21:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)I do know the difference between a PROD and an AfD. I accept my mistake in calling you the prodding editor. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an unofficial user essay, and not official WP policy. The official WP policy which is applicable here is WP:IGNORE in my opinion for reasons given by other editors on this page. Soham321 ( talk) 21:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Adding further articles to AfDs that have existed for a few days is problematic for a number of reasons especially if there have been a number of comments offered. In the past when I did that in the name of efficiency I was rightly called on it. It would not have been a problem if
Soham321 had suspended his blanket inclusion of all fights to see how this AfD turned out.
Peter Rehse (
talk) 21:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)On the contrary i am now going to finish writing up the stubs for all the remaining Ali fights by today itself. Since this issue must be resolved as efficiently as possible. We are here to create an encyclopedia and not to keep arguing endlessly about whether certain WP pages need to be preserved or deleted. Soham321 ( talk) 21:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment WP pages have now been created for all the Ali fights. So any proposed deletions can be discussed in an efficient and holistic manner on this page itself, rather than conducting this exercise over multiple AfD pages (discussing AfDs for individual Ali fights on separate AfD pages). Soham321 ( talk) 01:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep All The scope and breadth of the sources provided establish notability. These stubs should be expanded, with the sources already in the article as well as the extensive additional material available. Alansohn ( talk) 04:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep All The sources all seem to pass WP:RS and significant coverage has been met per WP:NOTABILITY. ReusGang ( talk) 13:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. The fundamental point of WP's array of inclusion guidelines is to ask the question, "Can an encyclopedic article be written about this subject?" When the subject is a fight that includes Muhammad Ali, one of the most written-about figures of the 20th century, the answer to that question will invariably be "Yes". A Train talk 16:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep and object to this bundling - I'm sure that there are some fights involving Ali that aren't really historical in the grand scheme of things. However, right now, we have a bunch of different fights bundled together. It seems that at least a few of them have received notable news coverage, particularly in terms of changes in boxing culture being noticed. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 00:08, 25 October 2016 (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.
- 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) Nordic Nightfury 07:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Muhammad Ali vs. Oscar Bonavena ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Also nominating-
Muhammad Ali vs. Al Lewis
Muhammad Ali vs. Bob Foster
Muhammad Ali vs. Jürgen Blin
Muhammad Ali vs. Rudie Lubbers
Not notable non-title fights.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof? 16:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ ( talk) 16:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 18:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Concerted effort by an editor to create stubs for every single Ali fight but really the ones listed above can make no claim to notability t justify their own article. They are already listed in the main article. Peter Rehse ( talk) 18:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Strong keep for all articles on Muhammed Ali fights. Most of Ali's fights were major news and major box-office at the time whether or not they were title fights. Those few fights that were not considered especially important at the time have grown to be so with the immensity of Ali's reputation. Ali is now considered by many not just the greatest sportsman of the 20th century, but one of its most prominent world figures. Is there policy against non-title fights? It shouldn't apply to Ali.
The articles are stubs but are well sourced and well edited and should be given a chance to grow. Spicemix ( talk) 18:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The articles seem to be well-sourced, and I don't think you can judge notability only on whether a fight involves a title. Ali's fights were generally well-covered, at the time and later on. I don't think the AfD submitter has made a thorough and thus convincing argument. I'm going to put the burden more on the AfD submitter to prove his case on each individual match. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Keep per Spicemix and Stevietheman, and the fact that the editor working on these pages, Soham321, has given a much-needed and much appreciated expansion to Wikipedia's collection on this legendary fighters career. Each article can and should be expanded, yet there is plenty of material to add to each page thanks to Soham321's extensive list of sourced material. Ali, who died recently, is one of the most honored men of his lifetime, not only in his home nation but throughout the world, and is honored for many reasons. I've been following the creation of this collection of pages on the Ali template, and have continued to be impressed by the dedication of the initial editor and the extent that Wikipedia's Ali collection has now grown. Instead of deleting these starter articles maybe we should all be designing those star-thank you templates to give to Soham321 for the work and research involved. And this nomination gives me another chance to thank him (Thanks!). Floatin' like a butterfly, Randy Kryn 19:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep all. Just as every book by a historically very significant author is considered notable per WP:NBOOK, so should every fight by the boxer almost universally agreed to be the greatest of all time and to be one of the greatest sportspeople of all time be considered notable. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 21:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Not every fight is
The Rumble in the Jungle, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper,
The Ring or
Boxing News. Lesser bouts are covered adequately in
Muhammad Ali#Professional boxing record.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 21:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- We don't decide notability by degree of reverence/importance. These are events well-covered by reliable sources. Not every subject has the same degree of greatness per our own or even the whole of culture's perspective. If we decide your way, then half (maybe more) of the Wikipedia would be up for deletion.
Stevie is the man!
Talk •
Work 21:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- I repeat, Wikipedia is
WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Football games are also "well-covered by reliable sources". By your line of reasoning, we should have an article on every
Cleveland Browns game, which would be a crime against humanity. This fight lacks
WP:PERSISTENCE.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 02:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)Comment: I would like Clarityfiend and others who voted to delete the Ali fight articles to take a look at the WP articles about boxing fights featuring Mike Tyson: {{ Mike Tyson}}. I would suggest that even the least notable of the Ali fights are more notable than most of the Tyson fights which have their own WP pages, at least with respect to the coverage of these fights in RS including books and articles. To give an example, the Ali vs Blin fight is being nominated for deletion, but an entire chapter is dedicated to Blin and the Ali-Blin fight in the book "Facing Ali". The Ali-Blin fight is also covered in a RS like the New York Times. In the Muhammad Ali vs. Oscar Bonavena article, the proding editor deleted three separate references i had given to articles from the New York Times pertaining to this fight. For two of these references he claimed in the edit history that they were irrelevant since they were published before the fight took place. (The third NY Times article, which actually reviewed the fight, was deleted by him on the ground of citation overkill.) But in my opinion the basic structure of a boxing fight article necessarily includes sections like "Background" and/or "Buildup" for the purpose of completeness.For the Ali fight articles, my vote is for Keep. Soham321 ( talk) 02:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's difficult to argue against the "crimes against humanity" of having articles on these well-covered one-off events involving one of the most well known individuals ever. Sheesh. The reality is that well-covered one-off events are covered normally in the Wikipedia despite any wikilawyerly thing you might bring up.
Stevie is the man!
Talk •
Work 11:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- I admit I'm wavering a bit, but I don't like the precedent that would be set. This would open the floodgates to
Sugar Ray Robinson,
Joe Louis,
Mike Tyson, etc. Where do you draw the line? Then, you'd have to include grand slam finals for
Roger Federer,
Rafael Nadal,
Steffi Graf,
Serena Williams, and so on and so on. What about
Seabiscuit's match race with
War Admiral?
Après nous le déluge. It smacks of
WP:INHERIT.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 01:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)As i mentioned in my earlier reply to you the Mike Tyson fight articles have already been created on WP: {{ Mike Tyson}} . Soham321 ( talk) 02:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- I admit I'm wavering a bit, but I don't like the precedent that would be set. This would open the floodgates to
Sugar Ray Robinson,
Joe Louis,
Mike Tyson, etc. Where do you draw the line? Then, you'd have to include grand slam finals for
Roger Federer,
Rafael Nadal,
Steffi Graf,
Serena Williams, and so on and so on. What about
Seabiscuit's match race with
War Admiral?
Après nous le déluge. It smacks of
WP:INHERIT.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 01:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's difficult to argue against the "crimes against humanity" of having articles on these well-covered one-off events involving one of the most well known individuals ever. Sheesh. The reality is that well-covered one-off events are covered normally in the Wikipedia despite any wikilawyerly thing you might bring up.
Stevie is the man!
Talk •
Work 11:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- I repeat, Wikipedia is
WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Football games are also "well-covered by reliable sources". By your line of reasoning, we should have an article on every
Cleveland Browns game, which would be a crime against humanity. This fight lacks
WP:PERSISTENCE.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 02:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- We don't decide notability by degree of reverence/importance. These are events well-covered by reliable sources. Not every subject has the same degree of greatness per our own or even the whole of culture's perspective. If we decide your way, then half (maybe more) of the Wikipedia would be up for deletion.
Stevie is the man!
Talk •
Work 21:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep all all of the article more reliable with the reference and should have been chance for the editor to improve the article. — Masum Ibn Musa Conversation 04:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep all. I think boxing is utterly rubbish and should be banned, and every mention of it deleted. Nevertheless the media world - especially at that time - thinks differently and that makes it notable in a wikisense. Agathoclea ( talk) 09:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 14:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Muhammad Ali#Professional boxing record all these fights are quite well covered in the Muhammad Ali#Professional boxing record and add very little additional to the reader's knowledge of the topic. If these were serious significant fights in Ali's career, they would be more than one or two line stubs. ww2censor ( talk) 17:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- I am the creator of all the stubs for these Ali fights. Now as you can see i have actually expanded on the stubs for some of the fights. For example, Muhammad Ali vs. Henry Cooper and Muhammad Ali vs. Chuck Wepner. This shows that the stubs can be expanded into full articles. I started creating stubs for the fights while giving sufficient RS (from books and articles) because i hoped to arouse sufficient interest in others to expand on the stubs and save myself the trouble of writing up all the articles. Soham321 ( talk) 18:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: After putting up five of the Ali fights for deletion in this page, the prodding editor
WilliamJE has now started nominating other Ali fight for deletion through separate (individual) AfD pages. I would suggest that for efficiency each Ali fight which the prodding editor would like to nominate for deletion should be put up in this page so that this issue can be resolved in a holistic and efficient manner. I would also suggest that the prodding editor risks exhausting the community's patience if he goes around nominating individual Ali fights for deletion on separate pages instead of on a single page (this page). If an Admin is reading this, i would like them to intervene at this juncture. We are here to create an encyclopedia, and any argument about whether a WP article(s) is suitable for deletion or not must be settled as efficiently as possible. I suggest that the AfD notices on the other Ali fights which the prodding editor has made be deleted immediately and those fights be included in this page. I am aware of
WP:BLUDGEON, but the prodding editor's behavior necessitates that i remind everyone that WP articles on Mike Tyson's boxing fights already exist. See {{
Mike Tyson}}.
Soham321 (
talk) 20:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- 1- Get an administrator if you want. I've broken no Wikipedia policy
- 2- You don't know what PROD means at Wikipedia. You have used it incorrectly six times just on this page alone.
- 3- As for Tyson articles,
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof? 21:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)I do know the difference between a PROD and an AfD. I accept my mistake in calling you the prodding editor. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an unofficial user essay, and not official WP policy. The official WP policy which is applicable here is WP:IGNORE in my opinion for reasons given by other editors on this page. Soham321 ( talk) 21:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Adding further articles to AfDs that have existed for a few days is problematic for a number of reasons especially if there have been a number of comments offered. In the past when I did that in the name of efficiency I was rightly called on it. It would not have been a problem if
Soham321 had suspended his blanket inclusion of all fights to see how this AfD turned out.
Peter Rehse (
talk) 21:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)On the contrary i am now going to finish writing up the stubs for all the remaining Ali fights by today itself. Since this issue must be resolved as efficiently as possible. We are here to create an encyclopedia and not to keep arguing endlessly about whether certain WP pages need to be preserved or deleted. Soham321 ( talk) 21:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment WP pages have now been created for all the Ali fights. So any proposed deletions can be discussed in an efficient and holistic manner on this page itself, rather than conducting this exercise over multiple AfD pages (discussing AfDs for individual Ali fights on separate AfD pages). Soham321 ( talk) 01:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep All The scope and breadth of the sources provided establish notability. These stubs should be expanded, with the sources already in the article as well as the extensive additional material available. Alansohn ( talk) 04:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep All The sources all seem to pass WP:RS and significant coverage has been met per WP:NOTABILITY. ReusGang ( talk) 13:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. The fundamental point of WP's array of inclusion guidelines is to ask the question, "Can an encyclopedic article be written about this subject?" When the subject is a fight that includes Muhammad Ali, one of the most written-about figures of the 20th century, the answer to that question will invariably be "Yes". A Train talk 16:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep and object to this bundling - I'm sure that there are some fights involving Ali that aren't really historical in the grand scheme of things. However, right now, we have a bunch of different fights bundled together. It seems that at least a few of them have received notable news coverage, particularly in terms of changes in boxing culture being noticed. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 00:08, 25 October 2016 (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.