Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lineal boxing world champions

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. The core of this list comes from a single source, with no indication that it is recognized by other sources as definitive or even notable. Our Lineal championship article says there is no definitive list. So in addition to having greater numbers, the Delete commenters have the better of the arguments as well. RL0919 (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of lineal boxing world champions

List of lineal boxing world champions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of previously deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Cyber Boxing Zone lineal champions. If it is not deleted it should certainly be renamed, to List of Transnational Boxing Rankings Board world champions or some such. As Lineal championship makes clear, there is not and can never be one single definitive list of lineal champions. jnestorius^(talk) 18:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I personally think the idea of lineal champions in the modern era is absolute bullshit, as are claims that this is the same as the world titles contested in the early 20th century before multiple sanctioning bodies existed, but it is popular for boxers who have (or used to have) recognition (albeit from a questionably significant organization) as a 'lineal champion' to claim the title. These claims get reported in the press, but I'm not aware of any reliable sources that really support this as a coherent encyclopedic topic. A merge to Transnational Boxing Rankings Board is an option, but that would perhaps make the article too big. --Michig (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC) Also worth noting that the Transnational Boxing Rankings Board itself seems somewhat lacking in coverage in reliable sources - most of the sources in that article are the type of glorified fansites that get cited far too often in WP boxing articles, and there doesn't seem much else around. --Michig (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The first time I viewed this page, I thought it was a trusted source of information because Tyson Fury was shown to be the lineal champion. I thought, hey, this page gets it: the lineal champion is simply the man who beat the man or the winner of the consensus #1 and #2 fighters. He can only lose the title in the ring or when he "officially" retires, not when other people decide he's retired. As it turns out, what I saw was only a temporary edit "fixed" by the moderators, and the page has been edited and fixed countless times ever since. Is this normal for Wikipedia? If not, the page should be deleted. Davidjohnadams (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A made-up construct of the itself unnotable Cyber Boxing Zone. Not recognized by the WBA, WBO, IBF, XYZ, AARGHBA (the pirates' boxing association), etc., etc. Only one of a number of competing lists. As this one was compiled by the apparently unnotable Cyber Boxing Zone, I don't see that it is notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's insane that someone tagged the article for deletion. CBZ is not a news or rankings website, its a historical boxing website created by boxing historians. Their list of lineal champions are the most reliable among all boxing websites you can find in the internet. Please don't be hasty in deleting or tagging articles for deletion. Prettyboy361 (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Prettyboy361: What do you mean by "reliable", and what sources unconnected to CBZ state that CBZ is reliable and/or notable? Would you agree that there are other, differing, lists of lineal boxing world champions? How would you feel about renaming this list to some name like "List of Transnational Boxing Rankings Board lineal world champions" or "List of Cyber Boxing Zone lineal world champions"? jnestorius^(talk) 23:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you want to rename it back to "List of cyber boxing zone lineal world champions" that you once created before? The name of the article is inappropriate that's why it was deleted. And then someone re-created the article with the right title because its a very important article for boxing but then you were the first to object its recreation in the talk page. Why? You cannot delete an article just because you dislike it. If you have an issue on its lead paragraph then you are free to delete, add or change it or put an 'issues tag' on it not 'deletion tag'. Thousands of boxing-related articles are linked on that list article. Even the Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing/MOSGuidelines recognised the article. About CBZ, we all know that informations and research data from that website are genuine. Its not all about its notability of a website but lets also consider of its integrity.Prettyboy361 (talk) 08:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1. The name of the article is inappropriate that's why it was deleted. — no, it was deleted as non-notable. If only the name were problematic, then it would have been renamed rather than deleted.
        2. its a very important article — that's an assertion by you; you need to back it up with references to reliable third-party sources.
        3. Thousands of boxing-related articles are linked — via {{World professional boxing champions}}; if the article is deleted then the link will be removed from that template. Articles can still link to lineal championship where appropriate.
        4. we all know — Wikipedia:Everybody knows is not good enough. jnestorius^(talk) 10:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • jnestorius^(talk) 10:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • If there is a Lineal championship article then there should be also its list List of lineal boxing world champions just like the The Ring (magazine) has it's List of The Ring world champions. Every title in boxing, WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO even the IBO or the Undisputed champion has its own list article. I really see no problem with the article and Cyber Boxing Zone is a credible website founded by real boxing historians and CBZ is being used as reference by so many boxing websites like boxingscene.com. And like I said, the list article is linked to thousands of boxing articles not just the "world professional boxing champions" template. From lede paragraph to boxing records to succession boxes. Prettyboy361 (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is not true that "Every title in boxing ... has its own list article", because only notable titles do or should. In any case "the" lineal championship does not exist. On the contrary, the lineal championship article states, "there is no single canonical list of lineal champions at any weight class" and "BoxingScene.com disagrees with the lineages given by The Ring and by CBZ". You personally seem to regard CBZ as far superior to any other list that might be out there, but you have offered no reliable sources that say likewise. (As opposed to "the type of glorified fansites that get cited far too often in WP boxing articles".) You might begin by recreating Cyber Boxing Zone if you can find reliable external sources that vouch for its notability. Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing/MOSGuidelines is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS which cannot override the base policies. jnestorius^(talk) 11:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• jnestorius 'Lineal championship doesnt exist' you say??? Cant argue with someone like you anymore who think "lineal championship" does not exist. I may not be an expert wikipedia editor/user like you, but I say I understand boxing far more than you (although this user is just elementary drop out but grew up following boxing :-)) thats why its no wonder why someone like you wanted to remove the article. The List of lineal boxing world champions page is really much needed in Wikipedia/boxing and its a big letdown for us wikipedia boxing editors/users if it gets deleted. The Lineal championship's "Versions" include Cyber Boxing Zone so the List of lineal boxing world champions's contents are version of CBZ's list of lineal champions. We could add a "Versions" section on the article and add The Ring, Boxingscene and TBRB's own lists. I'm afraid that if the article gets deleted, the Lineal championship page will be followed. 175.176.12.1 (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Forgot to log in. (user:Prettyboy361) :) 175.176.12.1 (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • What I wrote was "the" lineal championship does not exist. Emphasis on "the". CBZ's version is "a" lineal championship, not "the" lineal championship. Lineal championship could do with better sources — feel free to add some — but IMO it establishes the underlying notability of the topic strongly enough to survive any deletion request. Not so for the list article. jnestorius^(talk) 10:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP. The article is well sourced enough to stay. Pacphobia (talk) 06:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jake Donovan: "Sometimes, perhaps even more often than not, a lineal champion and The Ring champion of a particular division are one and the same. Other times, they are not, in which case, ratings such as those maintained by cyberboxingzone.com and of course boxingscene.com (through site co-manager Cliff Rold) serve as an invaluable source in reconnecting with boxing history." - [1] Not familiar with boxingscene.com? [2] Pacphobia (talk) 09:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Pacphobia: – all that is clear from that 2009 article is that Jake Donovan did not regard the Ring's then claim to recognise lineal champions as valid. It's not clear that cyberboxingzone or boxingscene was maintaining lists of lineal champions, or that the two lists were the same as each other, or that Jake Donovan's list was the same as either. Donovan refers to "ratings", which doesn't mean "lists of lineal champions". If Donovan's policy is to fill a vacancy by a fight between top-rated boxers, then he needs to have a source for determining the top ratings, but his lineal champions will differ depending on which ratings he uses. His wording implies that cyberboxingzone and boxingscene had different ratings, and certainly that other ratings exist. jnestorius^(talk) 11:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1. "ratings such as those maintained by cyberboxingzone.com" - Cyber Boxing Zone doesn't maintain any ratings but lists of lineal champions compiled by boxing historians. That's what Jake Donovan was referring to. 2. "serve as an "invaluable source" in reconnecting with boxing history." - He was pointing out the website's credibility as a reliable source of lineal championship. Pacphobia (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • • Saying Cliff Rold's personal list of lineal champions helps "reconnect with boxing history" is not the same as saying Cliff Rold's is the One True List. jnestorius^(talk) 17:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's all sourced to the pseudo-sanctioning bodies that deal in this 'title', and fan sites. That's nowhere near good enough. --Michig (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't think the list has to go. Especially nowadays that lineal is commonly being misused by the media. The information listed here in WP are not solely came from CBZ alone, particularly the exact dates, other sources are linked below the page itself. I'll be adding another source. PinoyBoxing11 (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The concept of lineal champions may be notable, but we have a separate article for that. This is just a terribly-sourced contentious list with no encyclopedic merit. --Michig (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to Lineal championship. Valuable informational list from a legit website. The fact that cyberboxingzone had covered entire history of professional boxing, boxers records data and history etc. proved its legitimacy and notability. Eric Ercilla (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[I moved Michig and Eric Ercilla comments from Discussion section as they seem to be !votes. If this is not kosher please move back. jnestorius^(talk) 12:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)][reply]

• Delete. It is too exaggerated to show that Cyber Boxing Zone is a legit website (MOS:PUFF). Cyber Boxing Zone is a maniac website. Transnational Boxing Rankings Board, too. Wikipedia should not be used to make minor websites seem valuable (WP:ADVOCACY). Originally, "Articles:List of lineal boxing world champions" was sentences written by User:Pacphobia in his user page [3] (WP:NOTPROMOTION). --Poro789 (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is no official, established list that Wikipedia can source from. I’ve never seen/heard the CBZ, or TBRB, being mentioned outside of Wikipedia or boxing forums. It doesn’t matter if known boxing historians contribute to those websites, they’re not viewed as official outside of boxing fan sites. If it isn’t already, then it should just be mentioned in the Lineal championship article that CBZ and TBRB maintain their own versions of lineal champions. – ².O.^Boxing 23:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per core WP policy and the general edit-warring mess of the article since its inception. Having a plethora of so-called reputable sources each with their own interpretation of lineal succession fails WP:V, WP:SYNTH, and whatever other policies there are regarding consensus of sources—as in, are sources unified in the content of the article? The answer is a resounding no. Since there is no consensus amongst boxing historians and their publications, WP should categorically not be perpetuating such confusion further. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

The TBRB says "[its lineal lists] show and when they got there as well as those recognized since our inception in October 2012. We decided against going all the way back through boxing history. Why? Because the odds don't favor the Board’s historians agreeing on exhaustive successions nearly as much as they do a debate-gone-bad with flying fists and busted beaks."

Note that CBZ cruiserweight page says "Evander Holyfield is the first lineal cruiserweight champion. ... Or, you can run it as follows: [list starting with Marvin Camel]". Wikipedia plumps for option #2, for no stated reason. jnestorius^(talk) 17:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Illustrated 2008 Almanac has asterisked lineal champions in its boxing section; they differ even more (e.g. Cruiserwieght 1989–2003, Light Heavyweight 1974–2005, etc etc). jnestorius^(talk) 12:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one source you need to determine who the heavyweight lineal champion is: the ring. Jack Johnson had to beat Jim Jefferies in the ring to remove any doubt. Ezzard Charles had to beat Joe Louis and Joe Frazier had to beat Muhammad Ali. In the 134 year history of the heavyweight lineage, only Gene Tunney, Rocky Marino and Lennox Lewis have actually retired from the sport before they could lose their lineal crown in the ring. When this happens, there's confusion because every reputable source has their own top two fighters. Right now, Anthony Joshua and Deontay Wilder are top two in "BoxRec", Tyson Fury and Deontay Wilder lead the "RING ratings" and Deontay Wilder and Tyson Fury are considered the top fighters in "TBRB". Davidjohnadams (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can establish itself as the goto place for the lineal championships, focusing only on who beat who in the ring, and caring less about whether there is a temporary retirement or ban for a lineal champion. There can be separate sections for each reputable source (e.g. Cyberzone boxing, TBRB, RING, BoxingScene, etc.), each having their own views on who the best fighters are, and whether a lineal champion is still active, semi-retired or banned. Davidjohnadams (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments First, WP's goal is to report what others document as notable, not to be the "goto place" to settle arguments between sources. I would also dispute that there's enough significant, independent coverage to show WP:GNG is met. You have 4 articles by Jake Donovan, which WP would recognize as 1 source and all of the other sources are from organizations with vested interests in the topic. I'm not seeing anything that would make me think the AfD on CBZ lineal champions was incorrect or has been superseded by a better article. Papaursa (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The RING" acknowledges that Tyson is the lineal champion even though they stripped him of the RING belt. Davidjohnadams (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cliff Rold at BoxingScene"provides a detailed description of how the lineage works, who Wladimir Klitschko actually beat to become the lineal champion (after Lennox Lewis retired), and why Tyson Fury continues to be the lineal champion. Davidjohnadams (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Lineal Boxing Champion website" is the most comprehensive source on how the lineage works, even explaining why the CBZ, TBRB and RING should not be considered as reliable sources for the lineage (see section 10. Sites that do not follow Lineal Championship principles) Davidjohnadams (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The Ring may have considered Fury to be the lineal champion at the time they stripped him of their belt, but so what? What has that got to do with the CBZ list? Is boxingscene.com a reliable source? And even if it is, what has Cliff Rold's opinion on lineal titles got to do with the notability of the CBZ list? The lineal boxing champion website is a fansite representing one person's view of how the lineal champion should be determined - what has this got to do with the notability of the subject under discussion? We're not here to debate whether the whole 'lineal' thing has been discussed by various people, just whether we should have an article on the CBZ list. --Michig (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• CBZ is no longer being maintained as it once was in the past and CBZ has no pages for recent lineal champions like Oleksandr Usyk, Oleksandr Gvozdyk, Artur Beterbiev, Saul "Canelo" Alvarez and Mikey Garcia. Not sure why CBZ is being upheld as the best source of information for the current state of the lineage, when you have the RING, Boxingscene and other more up-to-date websites. Davidjohnadams (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Now all of a sudden user:Davidjohnadams claims " linealboxingchampion.com" website that was created in 2018 is the "most comprehensive source" but CBZ, TBRB are maniac websites according User:Poro789?

(Cyber Boxing Zone)

Creation: 1994

SPIRITUAL ADVISOR ON ALL MATTERS FISTIC: Hank Kaplan

FOUNDER/CO-PUBLISHER/ ENCYCLOPEDIA EDITOR: Michael DeLisa

CO-PUBLISHER/ EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Stephen Gordon

NEWS EDITOR/STAFF WRITER: Juan C. Ayllon

ASSOCIATE EDITOR/MEDIA RELATIONS: JD Vena

ASSOCIATE EDITORS: Katherine Dunn, Lucius Shepard

HISTORY & RESEARCH: Director of Research: Tracy Callis

CBZ Staff Historians: Dan Cuoco, Hank Kaplan, Matt Tegen, Kevin Smith , Harry Otty, Ron Lipton , Barry Deskins, Matt Donnellon, Joe Grantham

STAFF WRITERS: Chris Bushnell, DscribeDC, Katherine Dunn, Dan Hanley, Eric Jorgensen, Adam Pollack, JD Vena, Lucius Shepard, Ron Lipton, Dean Vios, Tom Donelson, Karl Hegman, Jeffery Hawkins

SPECIAL FEATURES WRITER: Mike Casey

CONTRIBUTING WRITERS: Matt Boyd, Steve Coughlin, Monte Cox, Brian Donegan, Enrique Encinosa, Pete Ehrmann, Pedro Fernandez, Eldon Frost, Dave Iamele, Eric Jorgensen, Joe Koizumi, Dr. Ferdie Pacheco, Tom Smario (CBZ Poet Emeritus), Jim Trunzo, Fabian Weber, Randy Gordon, Greg Beyer

2008 OLYMPICS CORRESPONDENT: Zhenyu Li

WEB MASTER: Dean Vios

(Transnational Boxing Rankings Board)

Creation: 2012

Founders: Cliff Rold, Springs Toledo, Tim Starks

(Lineal Boxing Champion)

Creation: 2018

Founder: Jake Chaney (heard of this fella?)

Can't determine if a website is credible or not? I think Common knowledge is needed. Prettyboy361 (talk) 04:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Common sense can also be used to determine whether information on a website is credible. Who beat Wladimir Klitschko when Klitschko was the lineal champion, and has anyone beaten him since? Why is he being shown as retired when he's fought five times since becoming lineal champion? Could it be that CBZ is outdated, having never created a new page for a lineal champion since 2015? Even the TBRB founder, Cliff Rold, acknowledges that his own TBRB list (and by extension the CBZ list) has strayed from the true heavyweight lineage. Davidjohnadams (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article says it's about the CBZ defined lineal champions and there's a lack of independent reliable sources to show it's notable enough to pass WP:GNG. I'm not sure BoxingScene is a reliable source, but even if it is that means the article has one qualifying source. The Lineal championship article mentions various lists and I think that's sufficient. Papaursa (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2019 (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.