Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lineal heavyweight champions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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.
The issue of a reliable source is raised in the nomination and never adressed. WMMartin's comments about ease of finding sources and cleanup are noted, but (without casting aspersions) no sourced are cited by him. Lacking such, and noting that per the verification policy the burden is on those wishing the article kept, the decision is clear.
brenneman 05:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lineal heavyweight champions
Appears to be original research and lacks proper references. The opening paragraph claims this is a "mythical" championship and the only references given are a vague mention of The Ring magazine and three external links which all end up at [1] which isn't a reliable source and doesn't mention what a lineal championship is, only maintains a list of lineal champions. Ultimately the decision about who the lineal champion is appears to be down to editors' WP:POV decisions which makes this unmaintainable Gwernol 22:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Gwernol, except far less politely. Stifle (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Do not Delete article is very well known and the term lineal heavy weight is very popular, it's simply rediculous just to talk about this... .User_talk: BoxingWear
- Yea, i noticed word mythical, who knows what confused person put it there, this is by no means mythical, if you search all over, the term lineal is always considered a recognized champ, especially if there are no others.
- With respect, its not ridiculous. As noted, the article has no reliable sources. If the this championship is used as you describe, it should be straightforward to find multiple reliable sources and cite them in the article. If you can do this, I'll happily see the article kept. As it stands, none of the information in the article can be verified Gwernol 21:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Do not Delete This is a well known boxing term, anyone who doesn't know that already could find out with a search engine. The article is pretty decent, if you can do better then do so. To delete it is absurd, but that's what you get when you give control of something like Wikipedia over to elitist pedants who never would have countenanced it's existence in the first place. It's sad that even after Wikipedia ALREADY exists, some people's greatest aspiration in the world is to turn it into another Encyclopedia Britannica.User_talk: Anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.36.201.115 (talk) 07:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC).
- Do Not Delete In the boxing world, discussions about the linear heavyweight title are fairly commonplace. It is a way of distinguishing between real champions and lesser titlists who only hold sanctioning body belts. It is a real concept, too, dating from the championship of John L. Sullivan. There is no reason to delete this topic. MKil 17:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)MKil
- It was relatively easy for me, as a non-expert, to find evidence of this term and its meaning from multiple sources. The topic clearly exists and is notable amongst boxing afficionados. The article does seem to contain some POV comments and suffers from poor construction, but these are not reasons to delete. Further, this is one of those rare cases where a list is useful: it provides order and context that would otherwise be missing. I suggest Keep, and tag for substantial Cleanup, including better and more consistent referencing, and a request that someone tidy up the table at the end. WMMartin 22:39, 16 January 2007 (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.
