Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Jaco


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

David Jaco

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Non-notable boxer. Lost to a couple of interesting people but notability not inherited. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete by split decision. Keep with additional added sourcing. He got a nice ESPN article (underutilized in the article) and a Boxing.com book review, but that's not quite enough . Clarityfiend (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The article has been expanded from those 2 sources to now 8 sources. -- GreenC  17:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Jaco is notable not just for his career as a journeyman including bouts against a slew of extraordinarily notalbe fights (Tyson, Buster Douglas, Tommy Morrison, George Foreman etc.) but also for his personal struggles and family boxing legacy. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NBOX. Notability is not gained by fighting notable fighters or having sons who also became boxers or ran a boxing school because that's all under WP:NOTINHERITED.  Writing a book doesn't automatically show notability, either.  Every boxer has a story so that's not enough to show he's different from every other fighter, but the ESPN article is a step towards meeting WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Additional sources added to show he meets WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong keep The common sense reality is that Wikipedia is an information providing service. There are enough fights on his ledger which had wide audiences and substantial media coverage for it to be fair to conclude that users might well want to know something about his life and career. LawrenceJayM (talk) 05:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOX. Keep voters seem to believe that fighting notable fighters makes someone notable, but I agree with Mdtemp--that's WP:NOTINHERITED.  Of course there was interest in the fights of major fighters, but not because Jaco was fighting. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the Keep argument is that fighting in very notable fights adds to a person's notability which is confirmed by the very substantial coverage of the fighter and his fights in reliable independent sources. Can you explain why an entire article about this fighter by ESPN and his career doesn't constitute substantial coverage in a reliable independent source? Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree the ESPN article is good coverage. If someone provides others than I think a case can be made for him meeting WP:GNG.  I disagree that merely fighting notable fighters makes you notable--some recent boxer articles have been deleted even though they fought many notable fighters while racking up lots of losses.  For right now, I'm withholding my vote. Papaursa (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per GNG. I've expanded the article and sources. -- GreenC  17:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, no substantial coverage and fails WP:NBOX. Stifle (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Per GNG there are multiple reliable sources have significant coverage. -- GreenC  17:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep If he passes the GNG he doesn't need to pass any SSG. WP:NOTABILITY is quite clear on this.  He doesn't just get routine coverage for fights.  They talk about his personal life and his book.  Reliable sources in the article now prove he meets the general notability guidelines.   D r e a m Focus  21:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right, but the article had been lacking the sources necessary to show he meets GNG. I believe that has now been rectified. Papaursa (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I believe there are now enough good sources to show he passes GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2014 (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.