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. 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)[reply]

Tony Booth (boxer)[edit]

Tony Booth (boxer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Jacq 57 (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC) — Jacq 57 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Another first time AfD editor who hasn't edited in two years. Papaursa (talk) 01:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
See my comments following BeanieFan11's comments. Papaursa (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Papaursa: Try now. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11: 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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
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)[reply]

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.