Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham boxall

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. — Aitias // discussion 14:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graham boxall

Delete nn sportsman fails WP:ATHLETE - never played at professional level Mayalld (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This might pass notability if being captain of an under-16 national side qualifies (or, failing that, you might be able to find coverage of him in news sources about this). However, if this article stays, it needs a fundamental rewrite, and all the opinion have to go, even if it is a sad tale. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally non-notable. Dreamspy (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sad story, no doubt, and too bad he injured himself out of the game. But, WP:ATHLETE - he never made it to the pros. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Playing in a national team, no matter what your age makes someone notable, especially if they're the captain. This still should be deleted, because none of it is verifiable.
Google search[1] - Mgm|^(talk) 22:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't the link work properly? - Mgm|^(talk) 22:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now fixed. ;) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverifiable. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - representing your country at schoolboy level is most certainly not deemed inherently notable (if it is, I'm off to write an article about the kid I was at school with who played schoolboy hockey for England but who now works in a bank). The exception to that might be if there was exceptional coverage of the kid involved, but in this case there seems to be none -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm merely saying age shouldn't be a factor. Several countries have youth teams that tend to be nominated for deletion because they never played a fully professional league because of their age, but played international matches at a level between the typical school and professional level -- the highest achievable at that age. (Not that it applies to this person, but I'd write an article about any player in Jong Oranje in a heartbeat if there were enough sources.) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under-21 level is generally considered acceptable, not least because players who play for their country at that level have generally played professional club football anyway. I don't believe that extends "downwards" though. Under-16 level players are schoolkids playing against other schoolkids in matches which receive zero mainstream coverage and are simply not notable, irrespective of it being "the highest [level] achievable at that age". -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject isn't notable Camw (talk) 08:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 10:12, 6 February 2009 (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.