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.
contested prod, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the fact that the article lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources is exactly why this article needs to exist!!! i plan on getting the Inside Sports article from Colossus Collectibiles http://www.colossuscollectibles.com/mags/insports/home.html#1982 . when i read this article in 1982 i never forgot Artie Diamond's name. ive googled him and never find anything about him. i finally have been able to track down this article. ive seen other posts on the net from people asking for a biography about Artie Diamond. if you click on my 2nd reference there is a biography link on Artie Diamond's page and it is blank. that is why this article needs to exist so others can add to it.--Matthew049 (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Matthew049[reply]
You're misunderstanding how Wikipedia works. Encyclopedias are tertiary reference sources, meaning that they include only information we're able to verify first in multiple secondary sources. Those come first, then the Wikipedia article.--chaser (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I can't find very much, but I think it is enough. There are at least a few articles with a couple of hundred words a-piece, the first two hits in Gnews archives. If you keep going there are articles of a few dozen words, so those may be "trivial mentions" for the purposes of WP:BIO. However, the two longer NYT pieces with the Inside Sports piece is enough to establish notability.--chaser (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm still not convinced that this meets the requirement of "significant coverage". --RadioFan (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i understand the dilemma it creates, the desire to make a topic known despite not being able to find an abundance of info. would posting more of the IS article help? or is it simply more references that would strengthen the article. and thank you for the help!!!! Matthew049 (talk) 12:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Matthew049[reply]
Comment making the article meeting guidelines for inclusions would help. More reliable sources is what is needed. I'm just not finding any.--RadioFan (talk) 13:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many of his fights were covered in the New York Times but because of how old they are only headlines or short paragraphs are available, two of the more lengthy ones have been incorporated into the article (thanks to chaser for finding those). The article has been cleaned up, still needs work but is on the right track. If this were a contemporary fighter with a similar record inclusion would not be a question. Between the NY Times mentions and the Inside Sports feature (31 years after his last fight!) he easily meets WP:GNG. I seem to remember another fighter biting someone's ear off... J04n(talk page) 03:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Being featured in a sports mag article 31 years later is something. Abductive (reasoning) 06:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily passes notability for sportspeople at WP:ATHLETE as he has competed at a fully-professional level of sport. --Jimbo[online] 11:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep being featured on a reputable independent publication ensures a person's notability.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It mentions they had a five page article on him. Notability was established. DreamFocus 14:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. J04n(talk page) 13:32, 16 November 2009 (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.