Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viddal Riley

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. Sandstein 21:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Viddal Riley

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX PRehse (talk) 11:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 11:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With one pro fight, he is clearly not yet notable as a professional boxer. As an amateur he reached a high level as a junior, including competing at the AIBA Youth World Championships 2014, the Youth Olympic Games, and the Junior European Championships,([1]) but as a senior ('elite') amateur doesn't appear to have won anything. The other avenue to establish notability is via GNG but I don't see enough. The sources cited in the article appear to be largely boxing fansites or primary sources, and while I found a couple of articles in reliable sources ([2], [3]), there isn't enough to justify an article at this time. --Michig (talk) 08:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.