Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Johnson (boxer)


 * 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. Some of the delete comments point out that routine coverage doesn't typically contribute towards meeting the GNG, but later comments provide substantial independent coverage, so I have discounted these. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

George Johnson (boxer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced non-notable boxer. Lost to some interesting people but WP:NOTINHERIT Peter Rehse (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: I've added some sourcing, his long career provided press coverage of his notable fights.  It does appear he was inducted into the California Boxing Hall of Fame in 2005 though I'm looking for a better cite for that fact.  I also see one book says he got an "Award of Merit" from the World Boxing Hall of Fame in 2002.--Milowent • hasspoken  22:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NBOX. Most of the coverage is routine sports reporting and if losing most of your fights is enough to get you into the California boxing hall of fame, it's not very selective.  Fighting notable fighters falls under WP:NOTINHERITED. Mdtemp (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NBOX is irrelevant if someone meets WP:GNG. A fair amount of the coverage I have added (the article had NONE when sent to AfD) is about Johnson, thus I was able to flesh out some of his history.  He's notable for his longtime durability and ability to match up with numerous top fighters, which is why he got a fair amount of coverage.  He's cited fondly in books and all sorts of places.  Compared to old baseball players articles which litter this project, and, nay, even current professional sportsmen of all stripes whose articles dally as mere stubs forever with one bare citation to some sporting records site, Johnson far outshines them in terms of notability.  I wouldn't saythe California Boxing Hall of Fame entry by itself is sufficient, but dismissing it as meaningless is unwise.--Milowent • hasspoken  11:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the article has been improved to the point where my initial comment has less relevance. Still think it should go through the process (i.e.. not withdrawing it) but the sources go a long way to meeting WP:GNG.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As he faced so many noteworthy opponents (by my count, 13 fights against men who held, or fought for, the World Heavyweight Title, and ~5 others who held a top 10 ranking) thats enough to make his career, and hence him, notable imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sittingonacornflake (talk • contribs) 17:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOX. GNG is not met by routine sports coverage of his 50 fights--of course there would be coverage of them, especially if he's fighting notable opponents, but that doesn't mean there's significant independent coverage of him.  It's clearly established that martial arts halls of fame do not signify notability (and boxing is a martial art) and notability is not gained by fighting notable fighters since notability is not inherited.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WTF does NBOX have to do with anything? I've never participated in a boxer AfD before, I must say, I wrote Jacob Hyer, and that's about it.  Johnson was profiled in articles like this  because he was a notable fighter.  These aren't just two sentence AP entries.  How is Wikipedia improved by not including coverage of this important and well-remembered figure in mid 20th century boxing?  Boxing is not *just* a martial art, it was one of the most popular sports in the United States for a long long period, its more recent decline a la baseball notwithstanding.  I wouldn't have spent time improving this article if I seriously didn't think Johnson was notable and the article simply needed some TLC.--Milowent • hasspoken  21:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep NBOX is a guideline and not meeting it does not mean an article should be deleted. Numerous well-known boxers, such as Ted Lowry, Elmer Ray or Bob Satterfield do not meet it. I also don't agree with invoking WP:NOTINHERITED here. Most notable boxers are so because of fights against other notable boxers. Johnson was a well known heavyweight journeyman of the 60s and 70s, had 54 pro bouts, about a third of which were against boxers from the sport's top echelon. Boxing scribes like Jim Amato have written articles about him. He participated in televised bouts and received ample newspaper coverage. A google search for him turns up 266,000 matches . A search of the google news archive gives 230 results. How much coverage do people require? This seems very stringent since Muhammad Ali's mom has survived two deletion discussions! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sittingonacornflake (talk • contribs) 23:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would have said fighters (of any type) become notable by winning (or at least fighting for) titles. There's a lot of fighters who fought a number of good fighters, but they were just there to pad the record of the better fighters. Papaursa (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems like a good fighter who fought the bestCrazyAces489 (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I hate to step into the middle of this (I feel like a ref between two free swinging brawlers), but this shouldn't be hard to settle. There are only 2 sets of criteria that would show he's notable--WP:GNG and WP:NBOX.  Since it's clear he doesn't meet NBOX, all that is necessary to keep the article is to show several articles that give significant independent coverage of him.  Currently, I see lots of fight results in the article and upcoming event announcements but those are routine.  Just my opinion, of course. Papaursa (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include, which both include detailed biographical information about the subject,  and . Northamerica1000(talk) 23:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)ld

Keep Johnson's fight with Frazier was notable in that it was Eddie Futch's 1st fight in Frazier's corner, and more importantly, according to Futch, despite a clear decision, Frazier "looked like the loser" after the fight's conclusion. The California Boxing Hall of Fame should carry some weight in this matter. LawrenceJayM (talk) 23:30, 30 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.