Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Bloom (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 delete. Huon (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Phil Bloom (Boxer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Boxer who never fought for a championship that would qualify as meeting WP:NBOX. The article claims he fought a lot of fighters who became notable, but notability is not inherited. His acting career consisted of uncredited and minor roles, nothing that would meet WP:NACTOR. The coverage is routine sports reporting or the IMDB listing for every film he appeared in. There's nothing that is the significant, independent coverage from reliable sources required to meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:NBOX isn't very good with pre-1970s boxers, so I don't think it not being met matters much (I know some editors equate not meeting a guideline as a presumption of not being notable). In Bloom's era there were few regional titles and 1 world title for 8 weight class each (8 total).  Now there are 4 world titles (or more) for 17 weight classes (68 total).  Hard to hold to the same standard.  With that, I googled him to try to find if GNG was met.  I quickly found a number of good/great sources such as, , , , , and .  Considering the time when he fought (i.e., harder to find sources for someone who fought 80-100 years ago), finding this many sources with relative ease is a good sign.  Looks like he meets WP:GNG and therefore keep. RonSigPi (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * These are just passing mentions of fight results and announcements. One talks about him meeting most fighters of his generation, but notability is not inherited. The "Morse Dry Dock Dial" by the Morse Dry Dock & Repair Company also doesn't seem like a reliable source. His record of 96 wins in 202 fights shows he was a journeyman fighter with nothing that indicates notability as a boxer.Mdtemp (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep He fought MORE championship boxers than most champions, and definitely more than most contenders. A record of thirty years in Hollywood is more notable than 20 years in five minute cameos for boxing actors like Dempsey. It is more noteworthy to have a long career fighting top talent than many champions or contenders who fade from fighting top talent in five years. He fought Benny Leonard NINE Times. Each was a huge headliner bout usually in Madison Square Garden. Leonard was exceptionally dominant holding the lightweight championship for over ten years. He was nearly undefeated as champion. Bloom was far from a journeyman boxer. AND he had roles in most of the movies he appeared in. In the 30's credits were given to fewer actors in movies because of the lower production budget, and fast production turn around time. He boxed in Madison Square Garden over five times each to large audiences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcw2003 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 11 May 2015
 * Weak Delete Average, but apparently durable, boxer. Definitely doesn't meet NBOX. The sources I found in my search appear to be routine sports reporting and I don't think he meets GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Given his record, there's no evidence he was ever close to meeting WP:NBOX. Passing mentions or fight results and announcements are insufficient to meet WP:GNG and notability is not inherited from meeting fighters who were once, or would become, notable. Papaursa (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please sign your posts by typing four tildes. It doesn't matter who he fought, or how many times, because notability is not inherited (please see WP:NOTINHERITED).  The bottom line is that Bloom didn't fight for championships and was never considered among the world's best so WP:NBOX is not met.  There's no way that he meets WP:NACTOR since he had only one credited role and even the uncredited roles listed are hardly significant--"thug", "henchman", "bookie", "pug", "extra", "man in shelter", etc.  As previously stated, the coverage does not rise to the level of meeting WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Reasonable minds can differ, but I do not agree with the characterization that notability being inherited is relevant here. I don't think the point is "Benny Leonard is notable, therefore people he fought such as Bloom are notable."  To give this a modern example, lets say someone fought, after the fighters were well-established, in non-title fights Terence Crawford, Adrien Broner, Raymundo Beltrán, Yuriorkis Gamboa, and Román Martínez (all recent lightweight or junior lightweight top ten fighters).  A fighter such as this is likely because fights involving these fighters generate significant coverage, not because they inherited notability.  Even in loses, this example fighter would receive a lot of coverage through these fights.  Therefore, its not an example of inherited notability, but extensive coverage through fighting major opponents.  As opposed to team sports, boxing articles cover only two athletes so individual coverage occurs.  Returning to Bloom, his fights against major fighters of his day resulted in coverage of Bloom, even if its because Bloom was the opponent of the star fighter.  I think many of the examples I provided show this (e.g., the five paragraph Pittsburgh Press article dedicated to him).  Therefore, I don't think we are in an inherited notability situation, but instead significant coverage produced from fighting major opponents. RonSigPi (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As you say, we can see this quite differently. I see an old time fighter with no title fights who won less than half of his fights. I don't see a modern fighter being considered notable under the same conditions.  I also see the Pittsburgh Press article differently.  It states the organizers couldn't find an opponent worthy of a title shot so they got Bloom for a non-title bout.  To show he was a worthy opponent they contacted some New York writers to boost the local opinion of Bloom--that's more PR than anything else.  The fight result bears that out--Bloom barely survived the first round (knocked down for a 9 count) and was knocked out in the second round.  Even if you consider that significant coverage, and I don't, I don't see the multiple articles required to meet WP:GNG.  I also believe inherited notability was implied by Dcw2003 when he claimed Bloom was notable because he fought Leonard nine times. Papaursa (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Emanuel Augustus is a good example of this in modern time. Augustus is a modern fighter with no title fights who won less than half his fights.  He meets the regional title aspect of WP:NBOX, but as I said above this was not available to Bloom.  Outside of his regional titles, I think it is clear Augustus is notable.  He fought and lost to Floyd Mayweather Jr. and Mayweather has stated that was his toughest opponent.  He failed to win against former/future title holders John John Molina, Vernon Paris, David Diaz, and Leavander Johnson and had notable losing fights against Micky Ward.  I would not say Augustus inherited notability of the fighters he faced, but instead is notable in his own right.  Similarly, due to the competition Bloom faced and the coverage from those fights I think Bloom is notable in his own right.  Again, reasonable minds can differ, but this is how I see it. RonSigPi (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC) *Keep Several reliable secondary sources, fought in multiple championship boxing matches, etc. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 11:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete As I've already stated, I don't see Bloom meeting any notability criteria. I don't believe he's notable as a boxer or actor and I don't see the significant coverage required to meet GNG. Papaursa (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What championship matches did he fight in? None are shown at Boxrec.Astudent0 (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I found no sources that say Bloom fought for any title and SilverSurfingSerpant can't respond since he's been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. Papaursa (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have struck their opinion as they are a blocked sockpuppet. Davewild (talk) 07:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: per WP:NBOX. Quis separabit?  11:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain this further? I don't know of anything that says if a guidelines is not met, then the result is delete.  All the guideline deals with a presumption and not meeting that guideline does not mean delete - it only means a presumption of notability is not made.  Many articles don't meet a relevant guideline, WP:NBOX included, and yet are keep.  Therefore, I think more is needed than simply saying delete per WP:NBOX.RonSigPi (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Doesn't meet the GNG or the notability criteria for boxers or actors.Astudent0 (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

He fought Benny Leonard twice while Leonard held the Lightweight championship of the World. If a title fight was not granted, it may be because Leonard didn't want to grant one. If Bloom had won by knockout, a title would probably been granted anyway. That no one ever defeated Leonard during his reign in twelve years should be considered here. He was in a number of very widely distributed movies including ITs a MAD MAD MAD MAD world, which won several awards and in which he had a speaking role, as he did in a large number of his movies. Boxers very, very rarely had significant billing in movies in the 30s and 40s including ex-champions. Anyway, someone could check if he was rated in the top ten in Ring Magazine, and there is a good chance he was at one time. I'm not saying Bloom was notable because he fought Leonard eight times. I'm simply saying its somewhat notable because Leonard was possibly the greatest Lightweight in history, or in the top 2, and NO ONE ELSE faced him eight times. Unlike Leonard, he stayed in the public eye in movies for thirty years. More importantly someone could check in Ring Magazine.
 * Bloom was never ranked by Ring Magazine according to the annual rankings listed at Boxrec. The discussion about acting isn't whether or not he appeared in movies, but if he was a notable actor.  I see nothing to show he meets WP:NACTOR, so please show me what makes him a notable actor.  Finally, getting beat repeatedly by Leonard makes it look more like Leonard saw a way to get earn money fighting someone he knew he could beat.  Even the fight promoters and New York writers mentioned in the Pittsburgh Press article said Bloom wasn't worthy of a title shot. Papaursa (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't need to have had a title shot, or be worthy of a title shot, to pass notability. I think this line of discussion gets away from the true question - is WP:GNG passed?  I would think that any fight of a champion would be a notable fight, even if the title was not on the line.  If Floyd Mayweather fought at 155 lbs. without a title on the line the fight would be notable.  In turn, coverage would be generated about the fight and both fighters - leading the opponent to meet GNG.  I do think that it was a mischaracterization of the facts that Bloom ever fought for a title, but he did fights a reigning champion multiple times.  Fights by a champion, even if not title fights, produce significant coverage for both fighters.  Even if the fighter is not competitive or not championship caliber coverage would be produced.  The question is not "was Phil Bloom good", but "is Phil Bloom notable?"  I think the refs I found above show this for Bloom and therefore GNG is met. RonSigPi (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure what your point is--I see at least 4 editors that have said Bloom doesn't meet GNG. We obviously disagree about what significant independent coverage means. Most people think it excludes fight announcements and results, but you don't. You're entitled to your opinion but don't say others haven't mentioned GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * My point is two fold - to address the claim of Bloom having championship fights (he had none) and to address that he did fight a reigning champion. There were only 8 champions back then and fights with those champions would produce coverage even if the opponent wants very good or worthy (points made by the comments to which I responded).  I never said others haven't mentioned GNG, I was pointing out that his overall talent and/or title worthiness isn't very relevant to GNG in my opinion.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I have tried to be fair in my characterizations.  However, I don't think the characterizations of the coverage as simply fight announcements and results is accurate.  Further, you are right that at least 4 editors don't think there is sufficient coverage.  However, at least 3 do.  This inst a vote (see WP:DISCUSSAFD), but its inaccurate to point out the deletes without mentioning the keeps that suggest this is at least debatable while at the same time trivializing the coverage. RonSigPi (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're the only keep vote that specifically mentioned the GNG. Dcw2003 focused on things like the number of times he fought Leonard, how many times he fought in MSG, and kept claiming Bloom was notable for his acting.  SilverSurfingSerpant claimed Bloom was the subject of multiple articles but he's a sockpuppet who also erroneously claimed Bloom fought multiple times for titles.  RonSigPi, I must say that although I strongly disagree with you, I do like the way you keep things civil. Papaursa (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep Appears in significant detail in a numerous sources.  Passes GNG by a far margin.  A Jewish American boxer who is considered to be a leading contender and was additionally an actor.   Also remember there was only one title at the time he fought.  Not the alphabet soup of the WBO, WBA, IBF, WBC and more.   Actors of this era have had the opportunity to appear in many movies.  Unlike during his era.  Take a look at this

and  you will see how he passes GNG. 71.183.12.120 (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2015 (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.