Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Gorman (boxer)

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) Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Gorman (boxer)

[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) 08:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily satisfies WP:GNG, as I pointed out when I removed the prod. --Michig (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep boxer has had some decent coverage with plenty or articles like this one. Govvy (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More comments from uninvolved editors needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 11:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 12:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of WP:RS to give WP:GNG including this which is WP:SIGCOV: BBC Sport. Also interviewed on BBC Radio [1]. Britishfinance (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I know the Daily Mail is a depreciated RS (rightly), however it is one of the most widely read UK papers: [2] [3]. Britishfinance (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2019 (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.