Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Crossed (2nd nomination)

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. Consensus is that Sam does not meet the notability standards for an article in the encyclopedia. Just a note that google hits, Twitter following, own website and sponsorship are weak arguments to put forward. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Crossed

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

Non notable boxer. Previous article was deleted 3 months ago. Since then he's had 1 minor fight. Fails WP:NBOX with 3 minor fights. Claim to fame is still appearing in the one local Super Bowl ad with Mike Tyson. Being one of 14 heavyweights invited to the Olympic Trials doesn't show notability, especially when he didn't compete. Coverage is either for appearing in the ad or routine sports reporting so he fails WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Db-repost for this article was declined on the grounds that the issues raised in the AfD were addressed. I don't think they were - subject does not meet any notability criteria.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When you google Sam Crossed boxer 630,000 results pop up. He has a very large fan base, has a cult like following on Twitter from the boxing community and has had a featured story done on him before his last two fights by prominent boxing writer Steve Kim which isn't routine sports reporting. He has his own website, sponsored by Everlast, a prominent boxing equipment company. Most well known 3-0 boxer in the US and that is a fact. until the next batch of Olympians turn pro and even then he will be more well known then a lot of them. Wbballplayer13 (talk) 3:51, 10 June 2016

The number of google hits doesn't matter (see WP:GOOGLEHITS). Plus, you get almost as many hits if you google his name and super bowl ad so at best his notability falls under WP:BLP1E. Having your own website isn't a sign of notability and what notability criteria does being the "most well known 3-0 boxer in the US" meet? And do you have a source for that claim, besides WP:ILIKEIT? Kim's articles talk about the ad, tonight's fight, and how to buy tickets for his fights. That seems more like routine sports coverage and makes it questionable that the source's coverage is significant, independent, and from a reliable source.Mdtemp (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No evidence that he's done anything in the last three months making him notable per WP:NBOXING. OnionRing (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He wasn't notable earlier this year and nothing has really changed. He obviously doesn't meet WP:NBOX. I don't think that appearing in a local ad with Mike Tyson is sufficient to show notability via WP:GNG. I agree with the comment about WP:BLP1E. Papaursa (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's information and sources but still nothing to suggest otherwise better for the current questionability, delete at best for now. SwisterTwister talk 18:43, 16 June 2016 (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.