Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Foreman III


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

George Foreman III

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails general standard in WP:NSPORT (not participated in a major or international competition), has not received any major/notable award. Just by winning a professional debut (anyone can do it) and as a son of a notable athlete does not mean that this person is also notable. E Wing (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - deserves a sentence at most at his father's article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: It says "pro". Was this sanctioned by any of the recognized boxing federations? If so, he'd qualify under WP:ATHLETE. If not, then I'd say non-notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete A quick look at net reports of the fight gives the impression that 1. the only point of notability is that it he is his father's son - and Wikipedia notability is not inherited 2. it was a total mis-match the opponent has been called "a human tomato". Some malicious tongues in the cyber world have suggested that the mis-match was a set up to give GFIII's nascent fighting career some publicity - of which this article is a small part. If his career continues he will eventually have his own notability Porturology (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Granted, his coverage is due in no small part to his father. Not many pro's with one fight get a lot of coverage. But the coverage has been from some pretty notable sources. ESPN and AP, Fox Sports , NY Times , Sports Illustrated , USA Today , Washington Post/Reuters . These are pretty notable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: should the human tomato Clyde Weaver also have an article? He was in the same fight and has the same coverage but lacks a famous father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porturology (talk • contribs)
 * Does he have the same coverage? Do you see any mention of Weaver's childhood, educational background, training methods etc? Is being merely mentioned in an article about someone else "coverage"? In the articles about the fight itself, yes, he has the same coverage, but in the bio articles, he doesn't. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That is true but it comes back to the point that his coverage is due to his father's fame rather than any innate skills. I have had a look at a lot of websites including the press-releases of the casino where the fight was held. There is no indication of what "professional" means except that the fight was not sanctioned by an amateur body. There is no mention of a purse or the TV/Radio/Cable coverage. I would expect the casino press release would say if the fight was sanctioned by a recognized boxing federation but it is silent. If we take it on face value that this was "professional" then we have two "professional athletes" (one of whom had had 1 previous fight, for a KO loss) who both deserve an article. Personally I think the PR possibilities of the fight were more important than the actual contest and I would delete this article and await to see if GFIII develops a significant career. Porturology (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying and as I said from the start, a lot of the coverage is due to his father. However, if his name were John Doe and he fought a professional bout with the same amount of coverage we see here (and these are some pretty notable sources), this discussion would be totally different. You could argue he wouldn't have gotten that coverage without dad, but the fact remains that he did get the coverage. Is the standard why he got the non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable sources? Or is it that he did get that coverage? It is almost that we are going to penalize him for having a famous father. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Until he has and wins more fights, might this not be a case of wp:1E ? Porturology (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Further to this the fight was staged by "Real Fights Inc" an organisation that was established 2 months ago with a capital of 10K. The only presence of this company on the net is a note from the State of Nevada saying that the company registration fees are still owing. Porturology (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Keep - Agree with Niteshift36. If the bout was sanctioned by a recognized body, then keep per WP:ATHLETE.  Otherwise, probably delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to Keep based on added significant sources. Also, if I recall correctly, George Foreman III apppeared in some TV commercials years back, although that is not currently mentioned in the article. Rlendog (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Regardless of the reason, there is some non-trivial coverage of subject by multiple reliable sources.  Thus, meets WP:BIO. — Satori Son 13:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've thought about it long enough. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * keep me and nightshift don't always agree, but he is a notable boxer being that he is a professional.  he is also on many notable websites including ESPN,   CashRules (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough coverage has been identified to meet general notability guideline and probably meets the sportsman specific guideline as well. Davewild (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2009 (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.