Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triple Crown of Boxing


 * 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   redirect to List of boxing triple champions. Stifle (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Triple Crown of Boxing

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

There is no "triple crown of boxing." This term has been made up by the author of the page. MKil (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? This source:
 * seems to indicate otherwise. Uncle G (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried to follow the link but couldn't do so. Is there another way of providing the information?MKil (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)MKil
 * Well you have the name of the publication, the dateline, the (now correct) page number, and the article title, so there are plenty of avenues open for reading the article, including public library catalogues of that newspaper. Anyone suffering from FUTON bias can always put the article title into Google News Archive search. &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I do indeed suffer from FUTON bias, but I've done a little more searching and I guess it's true that other people have used this term. So I'll amend my statement that the creator of the page made up the statement. However, looking around it seems the "triple crown of boxing" or "boxing's triple crown" is not used widely and is not a concept with a coherent definition. This page seems like original research to me. The basic concept is covered on the creator's list of boxing triple champions page.MKil (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)MKil
 * I do indeed suffer from FUTON bias, but I've done a little more searching and I guess it's true that other people have used this term. So I'll amend my statement that the creator of the page made up the statement. However, looking around it seems the "triple crown of boxing" or "boxing's triple crown" is not used widely and is not a concept with a coherent definition. This page seems like original research to me. The basic concept is covered on the creator's list of boxing triple champions page.MKil (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)MKil


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability established the usual way. No reason for an exception here. Wily D 14:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Could you elaborate on how the subject's notability has been established in the usual way? I googled "boxing's triple crown" and "triple crown of boxing" and came back with barely anything. It hardly seems like there is significant coverage from reliable, independent sources as far as I can tell.MKil (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)MKil
 * Read the discussion before responding to it. Google is not the be all and end all. Wily D  03:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I did read the discussion. In your mind does one newspaper article establish significant coverage?MKil (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)MKil
 * WP:N gives the jargon of significant as "more than trivial". An entire article devoted to a subject in a newspaper, magazine, journal, whatever is likely to be nontrivial (though this can vary - certainly I've seen 1-2 sentence "brief articles" in newspapers).  So, per WP:N's jargon, yes. Wily D  13:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It also says "sources address the subject directly in detail." It seems there are few sources that do this. And the one source I've seen that uses this term (an old Ring magazine I have from the late 1970s) simply uses the phrase and isn't describing anything concrete. There is no such thing as the triple crown in boxing as there is in horse racing.MKil (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)MKil
 * To elaborate, there is no such thing as "the triple crown of boxing" or "boxing's triple crown." It's a phrase that has been used a few times to refer to a fighter who has won a world title in three weight classes. Does a seldom-used phrase that describes a concept that already has a page on Wikipedia really need a separate entry?MKil (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)MKil


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 19:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete The information that is relevant is in the page List of boxing triple champions. Any reference to "Triple Crown of Boxing" should be there, it does not need a separate article; whether or not the term is notable it is not notable independent of the list.  Theseeker4 (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * delete non-verifiable (no good secondary sources) apparently non-notable term that is not now now nor ever has been in widespread use.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of boxing triple champions and do not delete to preserve edit history under GFDL, as content from this article has been merged into that one. DHowell (talk) 04:58, 14 November 2008 (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.