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 Nakon 18:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Givens[edit]

Larry Givens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable boxer with unremarkable record - does not meet criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia per Wikipedia:Notability (people). Also, extremely dubious and unsourced statements contravening WP:BIO has been removed. Eqdoktor (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Per A7. Record? What record? There aren't any sources to show that this person ever even existed, let alone boxed professionally, if at all. DarkAudit (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral The article now is not what I !voted on before. Kudos for expanding the article. DarkAudit (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is notability in the wrong direction, see Eddie Edwards and Maurice Flitcroft for other examples. Catchpole (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm the original author of this article, before I learned to conform my articles to Wikipedia's formatting guidelines. I've added a citation to prove Larry Givens is a real person and divided the article into sections. Larry Givens is notable as an example of a Tomato Can, the definition of which is linked in the article. Brain Rodeo (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete comment: I have no problems with a Wikipedia article on such a boxer but Larry Givens does not fulfill the requirements of notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people). His record is mediocre but I can't find any independent verification (apart from the google hits on his record and Wikipedia itself) that he was remarkably bad enough to be notable. In fact, several boxers listed in Tomato Can has even worse records than Givens. Eddie Edwards and Maurice Flitcroft all have notable articles about them in prestigious reliable sources that fulfills WP:BIO requirements - I cannot find any such sources for Larry Givens - failing WP:V. He is not "bad" enough to be notable so to speak. The amended article then goes on to call him a Tomato Can - an un-sourced insulting term failing WP:BLP. The article fails a lot of Wikipedia policies as to be a borderline attack article. --Eqdoktor (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 10-10 record would be mediocre. A 3-46 record is incredibly bad. As boxing fans would know, it's amazing that this man could even get licensed to fight with a record like that. And Tomato Can is a descriptive term, not necessarily an insult. "Bastard" is a similar label; descriptive if it's used right, or an insult if you use in an insulting way. Brain Rodeo (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: No doubt its his record is bad, but the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.- from Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Calling him a Tomato Can without an independent reliable citation backing it up based on a simple boxing record is simply originial research on your part. It also stomps all over Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. I cannot find any independent reliable source that cites him as a boxer exceptionally bad enough to warrant an article in Wikipedia. --Eqdoktor (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I'll try to be logical. If the Tomato Can article defines what a tomato can is, then the reader has only to click on that link to self-verify. But if your interpretation of policy says that self-verification via wikilinks isn't sufficient in this instance, then it sounds to me like your complaint is stylistic rather than documentary, since Givens' identity is verified by the citation from www.boxrec.com. If you feel strongly that the "tomato can" reference is defamatory, then edit the article; don't delete it. The 3-46 record is still exceptionally, notably bad. Brain Rodeo (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: I have removed Larry Givens name (and two other boxers with no real citations) from the Tomato Can (sports idiom) article and in place provided several real NOTABLE boxers that have been independently cited as "Tomato Cans" by reliable sources. I have made my point here I believe - Givens may be a "bad" boxer but he is not notable enough (not cited anywhere failing WP:BIO, WP:V, WP:NOTE) to be in Wikipedia. No, the boxrec record is not enough as it is just a simple list of his fights - drawing conclusions like "amazingly bad boxer" from it is unwarranted original opinion. Also its just plain libel to call someone a Tomato Can and "unsucessful boxer" (your not an expert) - that breaks WP:BLP policy. -Eqdoktor (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:12, 26 January 2008 (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.