Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nat Jacobs


 * 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. There is no consensus here whether the subject meets WP:GNG. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Nat Jacobs

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is about a boxer who doesn't come close to meeting WP:NBOX. The only sources are links to his fight record, birth, and marriage. None of those show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * How come notability for MMA is 'Have fought at least three (3) professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization' (3-fights, WOW), whereas for boxing its 'Has fought for or held a world title'. DynamoDegsy (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Every project determines their own notability criteria, although WP:GNG applies to all. Also, notice the MMA criteria is for top tier fights, not just fights.  You can look up the distinction at the MMA project (see WP:MMATIER).  Finally, according to WP:NBOX, boxers don't need to have fought for a world title but they need to have been ranked in the world top 10. Papaursa (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Typical combination of USA-centric bollocks and Wikipedian Bureaucratic fuckwittery I'm afraid, The Ring (magazine)-American, International Boxing Hall of Fame-American, Boxing Writers Association of America-American, Bellator MMA-American, Invicta Fighting Championships-American, Ultimate Fighting Championship-American. In addition, 'Has appeared in a professional fight on a premium network's pay-per-view or flagship channel (e.g., HBO or Showtime in the United States)'-American, so the Marquess of Queensberry Rules-British, BBC-British not good enough then, but hey, he's mentioned in the The Miami Times and that's an American newspaper, so that should make it okay!!! DynamoDegsy (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess that explains why the only notable MMA fighters are American. Oh wait, there are almost 250 articles on Brazilian MMA fighters and over 60 on English ones, etc. and ignores MMA organizations like Shooto, Pride, Victory Road, and Dream. Since Jacobs was a middleweight, I looked up the latest Ring magazine middleweight ratings.  The champion and top 10 contenders represent 9 different countries, and the U.K. is the only country with more 1 name of the list (there are 3).  Obviously, these rankings are not US centric.  Lest we get too off topic, you're welcome to continue this discussion at my talk page. Papaursa (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for stumbling into my trap, and proving my point. Boxers from around the world came to Great Britain to obtain British Boxing Board of Control (BBBoC) licences, and from the 1950s their bouts were regularly filmed by the BBC, and broadcast on programmes such as Grandstand and Sportsnight with viewing figures far in excess of the measly 'best-ever' 1.6 million for UFC 100. In addition, these BBC's recordings were also re-broadcast around the world, including, e.g. Australia, meaning boxers with BBBoC licences had global exposure. As Mixed martial arts is a mongrel 'sport', with little history, and has a governing body with the sporting credibility of WWE; the notability bar for MMA participants should be raised to at least the same height as boxers, or as MMA is a minority sport, the notability bar should probably be higher. Why anyone would choose to enforce petty rules (we have a term for this in the United Kingdom; Jobsworth) rather than create articles is beyond me, but more bizarre is that rather than challenging the stupidity of the rules, is to become a self-appointed Police officer who dogmatically enforces these petty rules, it all smacks of Stanford prison experiment, but rather than being randomly assigned the role, the role of officer has been freely chosen, someone should really do some research into this. PS. Nat Jacobs is mentioned in the New York Times, whatever next!!! DynamoDegsy (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I've seen no evidence to support notability. MMA discussion is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and the fact he took part in a bout where the referee raised the wrong hand is WP:ONEEVENT.  Doesn't meet WP:NBOX or WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For someone without a Username, you seem to know an awful lot about Wikipedia policies, don't you 204.126.132.231 Papaursa . In the meantime, please enjoy this Pathé News footage of Nat Jacobs challenging for the British middleweight title viewed my millions of cinema goers around the world during March 1966, while I create WP:FUCKWIT just for you. DynamoDegsy (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Because 204.126.132.231 Papaursa says not to.127.0.0.1 (talk) 20:00, 21 March 1966 (UTC)
 * This is no reason to keep (see arguments to avoid). In addition, Dynamo Degsy, why did you fake the previous signature using the IP of another valid user and making up the date?Mdtemp (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well Mdtemp Papaursa 204.126.132.23, 127.0.0.1 is the localhost and as such means this computer, and the date of 21 March 1966 was chosen as this was the date of Nat Jacobs's British middleweight title challenge. You'll also note that I haven't voted, and as such the ongoing consensus has not been affected. DynamoDegsy (talk) 09:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

 The refereeing controversy:
 * Weak keep He has received press coverage for various reasons, including but not limited to the refereeing controversy. From a quick newspaper search.
 * "Jacobs the winner--but only for five minutes", The Irish Times (1921-Current File); Sep 22, 1965; ProQuest Historical Newspapers pg. 3
 * "Blunder of ref's verdict: On this day...1965" BYLINE: Bygones With Jeremy Lewis SECTION: Bygones, Pg.22 LENGTH: 431 words, Nottingham Evening Post, September 22, 1999

He also went missing in 1964 leading to a fight being delayed, which was reported in the press e.g.
 * "PHONE CALL FROM JACOBS ENDS HUE AND CRY", The Irish Times (1921-Current File); Oct 14, 1964; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The Irish Times (1859-2011) and The Weekly Irish Times (1876-1958) pg. 4

And substantial coverage of his involvement in the British title fight with Pritchett:
 * "Jacobs proves game but cannot match Pritchett", Barham, Albert, The Guardian (1959-2003); Mar 22, 1966; ProQuest Historical Newspapers pg. 4
 * Our Boxing Correspondent. "Lively Pritchett Repels Jacobs Challenge." Times [London, England] 22 Mar. 1966: 4. The Times Digital Archive.
 * "Pritchett keeps his crown - in thirteen", Peter Wilson, Daily Mirror, Tue 22 Mar 1966 Page 27
 * None of this is very substantial, but together with the Pathe and Boxing News sources it just about meets WP:GNG while avoiding WP:ONEEVENT. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Coverage of his fight with Pritchett is just routine sports coverage and doesn't show notability (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER).Mdtemp (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Going back to the beginning of this discussion it is not true that "Every (wiki) project determines their own notability criteria, although WP:GNG applies to all.", unless what is meant is that "Every project determines their own notability criteria, which are effective if they have explicit or implied consensus  of the entire interested community " . The relationship between the GNG and the special rules varies--which is reasonable because just as we collectively made the GNG at the enWP, we collectively decide how to use it,-- this is not the same as for example, the mandate to respect copyright, where the rule is set for us by the WP community  beyond just the English WP, and all we can do is determine the details of how to apply it. For example, the   rules for geographic features,   will explicitly accept articles beyond what the GNG would accept as an alternative to the GNG. , but they have long standing consensus, Similarly will early olympic athletes. We can may the assumption that sources to meet the actual GNG are findable if we care to, but we needn't go through that often imaginary compromise, since the actual text of WP:N and the GNG says only that it's what usually applies, not what universally applies. Sometimes we have standards limiting the GNG. such as for news events. The extent to which the standards for athletes limits the GNG is a matter for interpretation by the entire interested community, which supersedes anything the wikiproject wants to say about it. The way we determine what the community accepts is in practice at AfD. People in the wikiproject can explain their reasoning, and we usually give it considerable respect, but we do not have to accept it. This should be independent of our personal interests, and consider the appropriate use made of the encyclopedias a whole by the world in general. We exists to be useful, not just for our own satisfaction as a place to write about our own interests.  We're not a blog.      DGG ( talk ) 13:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Doesn't seem to quite meet WP:GNG and definitely doesn't meet WP:NBOX. Jakejr (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Any boxer who fought professionally to a high level is likely to have received significant coverage, and a boxer with a record like this is certainly of encyclopedic interest. Web coverage of a boxer who fought so long ago is likely to be sketchy, but there are still several sources out there, e.g. Manchester Evening News: "was one of Manchester's top boxers in the 60s, fighting for the British title", Pathe News report on his British middleweight title fight with Johnny Pritchett, The Glasgow Herald report on his defeat of Willie Fisher, The Ottawa Herald, small piece from the Schenectady Gazette, The Age article on one of his BBC-filmed fights being shown in Australia, Glasgow Herald article previewing his fight with Ralph Charles, Baltimore Afro-American: "Bookmakers Hate Nat Jacobs", short Evening Times article. There are others behind paywalls. WP:NBOX does not appear to be based on genuine consensus, and is well out of step with guidelines on other sports, so should be taken with a pinch of salt. --Michig (talk) 06:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * These articles still seem like routine sports reporting and passing mentions. These are mainly fight results, with an article on the murder of his son and the referee'a mistake thrown in.  None of these strike me as significant coverage of him. In addition, WP:NBOX is not "well out of step" if you compare it to the closely related kickboxing and martial arts notability criteria--WP:KICK and WP:MANOTE, respectively.  Interested editors can find an ongoing discussion of boxing's notability criteria at WT:BOXING. Papaursa (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * KIckboxing and MMA are not similar to boxing in terms of status, at least in the western world. Boxing has been a mainstream sport for a century and in that respect is more similar to football in terms of general interest and real world significance of sportspeople. Kickboxing and MMA are minority sports with little mainstream interest. For sports that are 'major' sports in a given country we have guidelines that suggest inclusion for people who have played a single match at a high level - looking at the existing boxing guidelines in that respect they are way out of step. --Michig (talk) 06:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Michig has clearly established notability (in passing, he is also quite correct that boxing is not 'closely related' to kickboxing or MMA and has a far higher stature.  StuartDouglas (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment It still remains extremely poorly written and although that is not a reason for deletion it makes it hard to see notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2013 (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.