Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Booth (boxer) (2nd nomination)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Even disregarding the brand new accounts weighing in here, I don't see a consensus. It might warrant, eventually, a return trip to AFD in the future. Little participation occurred after the last relist so I'm doubtful that another relisting would solidify a consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Tony Booth (boxer)
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Journeyman boxer doesn't meet WP:NBOX or WP:GNG and is no more notable now than he was when his article was deleted twelve years ago. Nswix (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, Martial arts,  and United Kingdom. Nswix (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per LRQ 98 and WP:GNG.
 * RemMcG (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC) — RemMcG (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I simply feel that as an Area champion, who challenged once for the British title & twice for the commonwealth title. Not to mention towards the latter part of his career held the record for most wins of any active British boxer. He is notable. There are countless Wikipedia pages for journeymen fighters who do not have any of these achievements that aren’t deleted. Ones which never had documentaries or autobiographies on their careers. I am more than happy to add to & improve this page myself. However, I will not waste my time should the page be deleted. LRQ 98 (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  02:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: Nothing found for a boxer with this name, not much of anything since the last AfD a decade ago. Lack of sourcing, should be deleted. Oaktree b (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think challenging for the British title (the lonsdale belt is considered to be one of the most prestigious titles in boxing) as well as the commonwealth championship at two different weights is notable. There are many fighters historically that it is difficult to find information online. Doesn't make what they achieved or didn't achieve any less significant. There are over a thousand active professional boxers in Britain and I think having the most wins amongst them during your time is also notable. He also defeated an unbeaten Omar Sheika who was a 4-time world title challenger. The lack of sourcing is merely because I do not wish to invest time into sourcing a page that may end up being deleted. LRQ 98 (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Um, if we have decent sourcing, the thing very well could be kept. That's the whole point really. Oaktree b (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well I was gradually as I said going to add to and improve the page over time. Adding his record incrementally and providing sources for championship fights/notable matches as I go. However, doing so only for the page to be deleted would be a waste of time. I wasn't aware there was an urgency. LRQ 98 (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Added references for two of his championship fights just to start and added citations that were needed for both his documentary and autobiography. LRQ 98 (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Added reference for the Omar Sheika win, who was undefeated at the time and went on to challenge for the world title 4 times. LRQ 98 (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per LRQ 98 and WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Subject fails to meet either WP:NBOX or WP:ANYBIO. Winning less than a third of his fights means he's not close to meeting boxing notability criteria. Coverage of fights seems like typical reporting for any boxer, notability isn't inherited from whom he fought, and the fact that there "are countless Wikipedia pages for journeymen fighters" on WP is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  I don't see the multiple independent reliable sources mentioned by WP:GNG, though the Setanta biography is a start. Papaursa (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Firstly, both WP:NBOX & WP:ANYBIO are inherently subjective guidelines, and open to interpretation. Dave Allen for example has never been ranked in the world top ten, yet there is not a prolonged debate regarding his notability. Another example would be Johnny Fisher, currently an area champion (as was Booth), if he retired tomorrow would his page be deleted? The only reason the above two subjects wouldn't be, would be because of the 'point of view' they were still 'notable', despite failing to adhere to any notability criteria. Secondly, "Winning less than a third of his fights means he's not close to meeting boxing notability criteria" is a somewhat of a flawed argument, as if a fighter won 100/300 fights, he's still won 100 fights, which would be considerably more than the vast majority of boxers and isn't an achievement that should be dismissed. "notability isn't inherited from whom he fought", Well, I would think most boxing fans remember or accredit fighters based on that exact reason, who they fought, & in this case, beat in some instances. Mentioning the journeymen pages wasn't the crux of my argument, it was simply drawing a comparison. Although, if "other stuff exists" why can't this page? I don't see any demand the aforementioned articles be deleted. Also, these countless pages I was referring to related to journeymen with single digit wins, held no titles & never fought a championship fight. All of which does not apply to Booth. LRQ 98 (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, as per WP:GNG. "A topic (Tony Booth) is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage (Documentary & autobiography) in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (television & publishers)". LRQ 98 (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't know where you got that quote from, it's certainly not from WP:GNG. Autobiographies are never independent of the subject. The point is that he fails two of his obvious routes to WP notability--boxing notability and bio notability.  I'll refer you to WP:THREE and ask you to list the sources you believe best show he meets WP:GNG and not just WP:ILIKEIT. I haven't voted to delete this article, but the burden of proof is on those claiming notability. Papaursa (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Quite literally the opening line to the general notability guideline in that exact link. Unless to took the bracketed aspects of what I wrote literally as they were only meant to indicate relevance to Booth. Anyhow, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7664556.stm BBC News describing Booth as a 'legend'. As well as boxing forums https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/tony-booth-is-a-legend.570119/ doing the same. I am by no means an expert on all these wikipedia criteria's and find it exhausting to arguing my case. I can understand the burden of proof being on those claiming notability, but at the same time it's futile when you are in the minority. I have said the reasons why I think the page should not be deleted. LRQ 98 (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per LRQ 98 and WP:GNG.
 * Jacq 57 (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC) — Jacq 57 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I would note that this is the first AfD vote for three of the keep votes, two of whom have made exactly 1 total WP edit. Papaursa (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Papaursa Thanks. I tagged them as SPAs. If you ever see them, just add  Nswix (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, so first-time voters aren't valued or counted? I didn't realise wikipedia discouraged new users. LRQ 98 (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No one registers an account for the first time and then immediately heads over to AFD. Especially not two accounts within two minutes of each other. Nswix (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, it would appear two people have. LRQ 98 (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per LRQ 98 and WP:GNG. Sweet Science Fan (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Another first time AfD editor who hasn't edited in two years. Papaursa (talk) 01:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, so firstly, first-time editors were at somehow at fault. Now, an editor of 5 years from what I can see is also at fault. Seems to be a recurring theme here. I am surprised you haven’t taken exception with the other user who voted to keep this page. LRQ 98 (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You're mad this page is on track to getting deleted, so you created a couple extra accounts and copy-pasted Necrothesp's message to try to beef up the keep votes. Happens all the time. Did you think you're the first person to do this? Nswix (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Nice of you to say. Oh, is it really? Well, if it is, it is. If it isn’t, it isn’t. You sound very personally invested in the former however. Even if that were true, not that I have the time or inclination to protest my innocence to you, would there be any way for you to prove it? Or me to disprove it? No, so it’s little more than your fanciful opinion. “Beef up the votes”. It’s a Wikipedia page pal, not an election. Think you’re taking it too seriously. Well, I really wouldn’t know. I don’t spend all my time going around trying to delete pages people take time to create. LRQ 98 (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete I have already given my analysis above, but I held off voting to see if someone could make a case for him as WP notable. No one provided convincing evidence of that notability. Papaursa (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * See my comments following BeanieFan11's comments. Papaursa (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: for policy based input. I've also semi'ed the AfD to cut the number of socks and SPAs. Folks are welcome to use the Talk. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  01:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Newspapers.com brings up plenty of coverage, e.g. Grimsby Evening Telegraph, Hull Daily Mail, this, this, this, this, this, this, etc. Clearly passes GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't access those links. Is this coverage beyond fight results and promotions and consisting of more than local coverage? All of the Hull Daily Mail articles count as one source, at most. Papaursa (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Try now. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your assistance. I'll admit there were a lot of sources, but I expected that based on the number of fights he had.  The coverage was overwhelmingly local and typical sports reporting.  There's no doubt he's a local celebrity, but is he WP notable?  There's a lot of hyperbole about him being a world title contender, but he was never close to that--not when he won less than 1/3 of his fights.  His only title was for a vacant local British title where he defeated someone who won less than 1/4 of his fights--hardly the stuff of legends.  Frankly, I still question his notability for WP, but there's so many local sources it may be possible there's a few good ones.  I've crossed out my vote above because I'm tired of fighting over this journeyman boxer. Papaursa (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. Newspapers.com brings up plenty of coverage. Themanwithnowifi (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2024 (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.