Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everett Martin

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everett Martin

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

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. Being defeated by a series of notable boxers does not confer notability (WP:NOTINHERITED) Peter Rehse (talk) 11:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NBOX. No significant independent coverage and the WBF is not a major boxing organization. How does a guy with only 20 wins in 60 fights and with 11 straight losses even get a world title fight, even for a minor organization? Papaursa (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. No significant boxing accomplishments and no significant independent coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2016 (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.