Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conor Benn

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 no consensus. Many various opinions here, but no consensus for a particular outcome has emerged within this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Benn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable boxer who does not even come close to meeting WP:NBOX only claim to fame being the son of a more well-known boxer which is not relevant. This was a contested PROD with the contention that WP:GNG was met but I am pretty sure that is not the case. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. A quick Google search found coverage such as these: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. --Michig (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as meets WP:GNG as mentioned above. More than one of the above sources mentions he has a major endorsement deal with Reebok and is also a brand ambassador for them. Naue7 (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment He clearly doesn't meet WP:NBOX with a total of 4 minor pro fights. All of the coverage seems focused on the fact that his father was a notable boxer. His dad seems to be mentioned in either the headline or first sentence of the given sources. It's clear that if his father wasn't Nigel Benn, Conor wouldn't have an article (or likely a Reebok contract). I would suggest that, at least until he achieves some notable success as a boxer, a redirect might be more appropriate. Papaursa (talk) 05:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The coverage tends to mention his father for obvious reasons, but it clearly is not the focus of all the coverage. If he wasn't any good he wouldn't be getting all this coverage - there's so much because he's seen as a potential future champion. --Michig (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If his father wasn't a champion, 4 fights against fighters who all have losing records wouldn't generate any buzz. Calling someone at this stage of his career "a potential future champion" seems like extreme WP:CRYSTALBALL and is a claim that could be made about virtually any young fighter. Seems like WP:NOTINHERITED also comes into play. Papaursa (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Just look at the lack of coverage for Chris Eubank's 'other son' (Nathaniel Wilson), who is at a similar stage in his career and whom people are not getting too excited about yet. Benn is getting onto top cards because there's so much interest in him. WP:CRYSTALBALL covers predictions of future events, not seeing talent in someone who could become successful. WP:NOTINHERITED might have applied if someone was arguing that Benn should have an article simply because of who his father is but nobody is arguing that - he has received coverage for his boxing career so is independently notable. --Michig (talk) 06:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as what stands and is stated here is that he is not applicable for the notability especially considering his career achievements so far, none of them have been for a notable and major event or happening; therefore even with sources, this would certainly still be questionable. SwisterTwister talk 02:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per SwisterTwister. —Mythdon 11:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- not independently notable of Reebok or Nigel Benn. Notability is not WP:INHERITed. Otherwise, no indications of significance or WP:SIGCOV as his own person to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Nigel Benn as a separate section within that article. He is the subject of significant secondary coverage but it exists only because of his family, and it would be logical to maintain this reliably sourced info in the article that gives it the appropriate context. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Professional fighter of promise at the start of his career. Cannot help get the feeling that deletion now will lead to future reinstatement and that this AFD is a little premature. 82.41.126.253 (talk) 16:40, 19 October 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.