Ryan Martin (boxer) – Relist. It's hard to tell if there's really consensus here to endorse or overrule, but I'm going to punt on making that call completely. As is common with this sort of review, the discussion here is a mix of rehashing the AfD, arguing about process, and just for added fun, a little sock-puppet confusion. It impossible to tease all that apart. In the end, however, all that really matters is the quality of the article, so I'm going to call this a do-over and |send it back to AfD. There, we can have a clean discussion on the merits of the article, free from arguments about process, and hopefully unfettered by more puppetry. -- RoySmith(talk) 02:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC) – -- RoySmith(talk) 02:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Three established editors said the subject passes WP:NBOX: C.dunkin, Tony the Marine, and In ictu oculi.
Seven established editors said the subject fails WP:NBOX: Mdtemp, PRehse, Murry1975, Papaursa, Nonsenseferret, Jakejr, and Astudent0.
Three established editors did not mention WP:NBOX: Primefac, AntonioMartin, and Cunard.
It is not reasonable to say that the consensus was the subject fails WP:GNG.
Two established editors discussed the sources and said the subject passes WP:GNG: C.dunkin and Cunard.
One established editor discussed the sources and said the subject fails WP:GNG: Jakejr.
Ten established editors did not mention the sources I posted: Tony the Marine, In ictu oculi, Mdtemp, PRehse, Murry1975, Papaursa, Nonsenseferret, Astudent0, Primefac, and AntonioMartin.
The only editor who said the subject fails WP:GNG wrote:
I would say he lacks the significant independent coverage in reliable sources required to meet WP:GNG. These articles mentioned tend to be fight results or press releases for upcoming bouts (or be on websites of dubious reliability).
I don't think these three sources (which I listed at the AfD) can be considered "fight results or press releases for upcoming bouts" or from "websites of dubious reliability":
Bush, Ron (2013-09-07). "Chattanooga boxer Ryan Martin to begin pro boxing". Chattanooga Times Free Press. Archived from the original on 2014-12-26. Retrieved 2014-12-26.
The article notes:
After more than 200 amateur fights and 12 national championships under various labels, Chattanooga boxer Ryan Martin has gone pro. And he's hooked up with someone whose very name means coin.
Martin, most recently a Golden Gloves 132- and 141-pound open participant, is set to make his professional debut in the 135-pound lightweight class on Sept. 16 at the Resorts World Casino in New York City. He has a promotional deal with SMS Promotions, owned by rapper 50 Cent.
Wiedmer, Mark (2014-04-18). "Wiedmer: Martin on verge of boxing stardom". Chattanooga Times Free Press. Archived from the original on 2014-12-26. Retrieved 2014-12-26.
The article notes:
Ryan Martin was pushing a lawnmower around a Hixson front yard last September, trying to put an extra $20 in his pocket, when his cell phone rang.
"It was [the rapper] 50 Cent and Tim [VanNewhouse]," he said. "They wanted me to box for them full time. I couldn't believe it."
Assuming "Blue Chip" Martin improves to 5-0 following tonight's lightweight bout against Misael Chacon in Monroeville, Pa., the whole country could believe in him come July 2. That's when ESPN would televise a bout including Martin on its "Wednesday Night Fight" show.
Shahen, Paul (2014-05-16). "Chattanooga's Ryan Martin featured in 50 Cent's new music video". WRCB. Archived from the original on 2014-12-26. Retrieved 2014-12-26.
The article notes:
Pro boxer Ryan Martin goes from the ring to the big screen in 50 Cent's newest music video. The song is conveniently named "Winners Circle" and it makes sense because since Martin turned pro he's spent a lot of time in the winners circle.
Martin signed with 50 Cent's boxing label SMS Promotions last year. The former West Side Boxer in Chattanooga is off to a 5-0 pro start with three knockouts.
The Chattanooga Times Free Press is a reliable newspaper and WRCB is a reliable NBC affiliated television station. These articles are not "press releases" or merely about "fight results". They discuss the subject in detail and amount to "significant coverage".
Here is a source C.dunkin mentioned in the AfD and on the closer's talk page:
Anson Wainwright. "New Faces: Ryan Martin". The Ring (magazine). Archived from the original on 5 January 2015. Retrieved 8 August 2014. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |website= (help)
The article notes:
Why he’s a prospect: Martin had a very impressive amateur background during which he fought over 200 fights, winning 12 national titles to form a very solid base from which to start.
Martin won the National Junior Golden Gloves title three times (2005-07), the National Silver Gloves (2005) and National Junior Olympics (2006) among other tournaments. He also competed in numerous international duels. His U-19 National title win in 2009 should be viewed as the biggest success of his amateur career. Early in Martin’s amateur career he was tabbed by then middleweight champion of the world Jermain Taylor as one to look out for.
Taylor dubbed Martin “Kid London.”
C.dunkin (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin collapsed this comment (along with two others) with the heading "Repeat of arguments presented during AfD":
Request to all: please don't repeat the whole AfD discussion here... I am going to stick to the close. Anybody disagreeing is welcome to start a discussion at WP:DRV (but please read closely the instructions on how to do that, just repeating the AfD will not get you anywhere at DRV). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The closing admin did not address Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline in his close and declined to discuss it on his talk page. There was no consensus in the AfD that the subject failed GNG because only three editors discussed the sources I listed. One supported deletion and two supported retention. The closer erred in disregarding the GNG arguments.
I have to point out that the editor C.dunkin you note above as established has only edited for about a month, and the overwhelming body of edits (using that account) have been to establish and prevent this article being deleted, due to what was described at irc as their personal involvement with the subject of the article. I think you are on your own with this one. --nonsenseferret 00:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see C.dunkin as a good faith new editor, a boxing enthusiast who has become entangled in Wikipedia's byzantine deletion processes. Many new editors have unpleasant first experiences with Wikipedia when their articles are nominated for deletion. Too many are chased away.
C.dunkin, I hope this experience doesn't WP:BITE you away from Wikipedia. Your contributions to Wikipedia's boxing articles are invaluable. Cunard (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard thank you for noticing my attempted contributions to Wikipedia's boxing articles. C.dunkin (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC - a little over-zealous in trying to discount new/inexperienced users, I think. Perhaps fails NBOX#4, but is at least marginal for WP:N, and a balanced headcount (with the votes swinging towards more "keeps" as more sources were presented/discussed - particularly after Cunard's listing of sources, only one user still argues delete (and thinks the article is falling just short of WP:N, not miles short of it). WilyD 09:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Contrary to what may seem to be implied above, I did NOT collapse comments HERE. The above DRV nom is copied wholesale from my talk page, where I asked people not to re-play the AfD. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC- I notified user:mdtemp (AFD creator) and user:Randykitty (closer) because I felt the sources weren't discussed at AFD. Hence, asking them about reconsidering their move/close. I did't get too far... Thankfully, an experienced editor in the wiki community was able to notice this; I felt defeated beforehand. In good faith users can see the Subject should meet WP:N through WP:V and WP:RS.C.dunkin (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I think the decision was a correct one. I think there was agreement he didn't meet WP:NBOX which leaves WP:GNG. Repeated articles in the local (Chattanooga) paper seem like local sports coverage and insufficient to meet GNG and I believe that mentions on boxing websites (which were pointed out as being of uncertain reliability) of being a top prospect are unconvincing since prospects, by definition, are not yet at the peak of their profession. I think the closing admin's decision was justified by the existing arguments. I have no objections to the article being userfied and reintroduced in the future. Papaursa (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The flaw in this reasoning is that none of the AfD participants expressed an opinion at the AfD that "Repeated articles in the local (Chattanooga) paper seem like local sports coverage and insufficient to meet GNG". The sources I posted were discussed by only three established editors (as well as several new accounts). Although I disagree with this position, I will not argue that here because DRV is not the place to make novel arguments not made in the AfD. If the closer relied on arguments not made in the AfD, that would be a substantial error. Cunard (talk) 05:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn- The afd was about 7-6 so really no consensus was reached. We should over turn it and then put it on AFD again if you are so inclined to delete it. Are we going to arbitrarily and selectively going to delete articles now just because we ourselves do not know the subject? Antonio The Knuckle Sandwich Martin (dime) 02:07, 8 January, 2015 (UTC)
Endorse as closer. The argument given just above is invalid: WP:NOTAVOTE. It's policy-based arguments that count, not numbers of !votes. If that were true, we could just have a bot close these debates. --Randykitty (talk) 06:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC I agree that the SPAs needed to be discounted. But there was reasonable disagreement about how NBOX#4 applies among established editors. And the GNG argument wasn't really addressed by the delete !voters. Hobit (talk) 06:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse As per closer and Papaursa. It is a bit much to expect every contributer to try and counter every argument made by a single expansive editor - I reject the idea that which editor discussed what during the AfD has any relevance. Although I personally did not add further comments beyond WP:NBOX it is incorrect to say the GNG argument was not discussed by the Delete voters.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, are you saying there was consensus on WP:NBOX#4? I really don't see that, but I'd be curious why you see it that way. Secondly, could you point out any reasonable argument in the discussion that he doesn't meet the GNG? As I read it, we've got reliable independent sources, which cover him in detail, and no one really addressed those sources (though they did address other ones like twitter and a PR release). It should be pretty hard to delete an article that meets a literal reading of the GNG and I don't see any of those arguments coming close to being strong enough to do so. But obviously at least a few people disagree with me, and I'd like to understand why. Hobit (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was only addressing the DRV issue. What my opinion is regarding WP:NBOX or GNG, or whether consensus on either was reached I don't think is important to this discussion so I did not mention it. What I was agreeing with was the common statements between the two that I mentioned decision was justified by the existing arguments (perhaps I should have been clearer).Peter Rehse (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What my opinion is regarding WP:NBOX or GNG, or whether consensus on either was reached I don't think is important to this discussion so I did not mention it. – whether there was consensus on GNG is at the heart of this DRV nomination. If no consensus was reached on GNG (because the sources were discussed by three editors only), then a "delete" close is indefensible. Cunard (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From my perspective, there was consensus on NBOX, because none of the editors who claimed it was met addressed the presented argument that is long established by precedent that junior competitions do not qualify in the same way as senior competitions. You could only give weight to an argument on NBOX if it addressed this key question: what precedent is there for the guideline to be used in this way? This question was asked several times in the dicussion and received no answer. --nonsenseferret 18:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the closer presented a clear and sensible appraisal of the strengths of the various arguments presented. There is a clear consensus that this boxer as yet is not notable. We have all seen many times before, for example with the footballer Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hólmbert_Aron_Friðjónsson even where there are numerous examples of routine coverage of a sportsman, and in that case it was relatively detailed national newspaper and flagship national news program coverage, this is rarely sufficient to render them notable per WP:GNG notwithstanding that they fail the sports specific guidelines, so a very strong argument acknowledging relevant precendents, in this respect would have been required and no such argument was forthcoming. There was no need to raise this point at the original discussion as it is already widely known and accepted. I would also alternatively support a relist due to the significant new evidence arising from the sockpuppet investigation currently ongoing at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/C.dunkin which may be considered to have significantly tainted the progress of the discussion due to the conntection that has been drawn between the two most emphatic posters arguing for notability in this case. There may be a clearer picture at the conclusion of that case. --nonsenseferret 18:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your relist suggestion but for an additional reason: The sources I posted were discussed by only three editors.
Had I seen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hólmbert Aron Friðjónsson, I would have supported retention. The sources you provided clearly established notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. It is disappointing that most of the participants there (as in this case) ignored the sources. I would take the AfD to DRV now since I think it was closed incorrectly, but the article has been recreated so it's now moot.
There was no need to raise this point at the original discussion as it is already widely known and accepted. – it not acceptable not to raise a point at an AfD because in your opinion it is "already widely known and accepted" and expect this unraised point to form the basis of an AfD close.
Echoing many of the participants' concerns though, consensus can not be considered in favor unless the new guideline clarifies that it does not replace WP:GNG but supplements it and that articles that do not meet this guideline may still be included if they satisfy WP:GNG.
The GNG question was not thoroughly discussed at the AfD.
As it happens, although it is really a digression from the discussion here I now agree with the result of the Friðjónsson deletion debate. In the event the player never did set foot on the football field for the team he was signed for. I think it was reasonable and wise to interpret those sources as being routine coverage of a non notable sportsperson, and therefore insufficient to establish GNG. It was clear that this person was not well known as a footballer according to well established rules, and it is pointless in building an encyclopedia to make an argument that the junior footballer was known for something else (ie. being signed for a team), merely because that fact was reported in the press. There are of course many things that are reported in the press in this 24-7 live media blogathon world that should not make their way to an encyclopedia. --nonsenseferret 01:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether there is "significant coverage directly related to the subject" determines whether the coverage is "routine" or not. Not other criteria.
If a source merely reports a junior footballer being signed for a team, that is routine coverage. But if the source goes further and provides "significant coverage directly related to the subject" (significant biographical information), then that cannot be considered routine coverage under Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ.
The position you present is not one that I have ever seen argued for, neither here nor in the deletion discussions, so it is a straw man. The specific sports guidelines are something which can be used to help interpret what is required by the general notability guideline. A too narrow interpretation of what constitutes 'routine coverage' would render it a pointless clause, since nothing ever written would be covered by it. There is a lot of coverage of sports games and player movements, but most of it is entirely routine and certainly doesn't indicate anything of encyclopedic value. --nonsenseferret 17:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Q6 of Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ would be written more broadly if the community consensus supported your broad interpretation. Instead, it requires only "significant coverage directly related to the subject".
I honestly don't find your detailed arguments so far in any way convincing. To my mind "significant" is a critical modifier in this context. --nonsenseferret 13:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
If that is what you define "significant" as, then that would be consistent with the guideline.
Administrator note C.dunkin and Boxexpo2015, accounts which participated in this AfD, were confirmed by checkuser to be related. Please see the SPI case for more information. Mike V • Talk 20:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your post here, Mike V.
The checkuser results are disappointing but they do not affect my analysis in the DRV nomination since I already discounted Boxexpo2015 and the other new accounts. Cunard (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.
If the result of this DRV is "no consensus", I urge the closing admin to relist. The sources I listed at the AfD were discussed by three out of the thirteen established editors. A fresh AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Martin (boxer) (2nd nomination) will be free of the sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry and allow for a discussion about the sources. Cunard (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The AfD discussion went on for 3 weeks. I would have thought that was long enough for anyone swayed by the sources to change their vote, so I'm not sure what would be gained by a relist. Most of those advocating to keep the article were either involved in the aforementioned SPI or claimed his junior title was enough to show notability (an argument that has been soundly rejected in the past). Papaursa (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That the sources were not discussed is the basis for a relist. The sources cannot be discounted implicitly through editors declining to discuss them. Cunard (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neither are editors required to explicitly respond to every argument they find unpersuasive. I believe editors will vote as they determine best and do not think they need to keep rejustifying their votes, although they can if they want. In addition, it seems presumptuous that you claim a new listing will be free of meat and sock puppetry. However, I'm now finished with this discussion. Papaursa (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If significant new information (like new sources) appears, it is reasonable to expect editors to address it and rejustify their votes.
If sockuppetry or meatpuppetry becomes an issue again, the AfD could be semi-protected. Cunard (talk) 06:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure about this. Looking into the matter further, I have a strong suspicion that the editor in question has been adding articles at least as early as 2012, which is longer than me! So perhaps agf newbie is not entirely appropriate. --nonsenseferret 17:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is a stale account and thus not directly relevant to this review, and there is a reasonable likelihood of being considered some form of outing, I will not be specific, however, if it is in some way of interest to you, then I am confident a mins intellient research could find compelling similarities in style, approach to other editors, naming and subject matter. --nonsenseferret 12:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to mention the account here if it is not relevant to this review. If the account's behavior violates Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts and the account's information is sensitive, then I recommend contacting a check user to look into whether the evidence supports the users being the same. If the account's behavior does not violate Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, I recommend taking no action. Cunard (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
