Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Maxwell (footballer)

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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 16:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Maxwell (footballer)

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

Contested PROD, no reason given by IP user. Football who fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not played at a fully-professional level of football, only Conference National. Also fails WP:GNG due to any significant media coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 16:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - U21 and U23 international at the age of 19 years reflects current an future potential. Wales U21 are curent table leaders in front of Italy and hungary for the 2011 euro championships. Does not meet all criteria but is notable and the article is a likely location for research. The subject is employed full time as a professinal athelete and plays for a historic and notable team.}}
Keep. He plays 5th division football. That isn't a long way from the top 4 which automatically confer notability. He's a Welsh U23 international of some repute. Article is well sourced and cited. He fails WP:Athlete but passes WP:GNG. Szzuk (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a very well sourced article, and my opinion passes WP:GNG. He may fail WP:ATHLETE but that alone is not grounds for deletion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly does not meet the criterion for athletes as he has not yet played in a fully professional league, which in this context are the Premier League and the Football League, nor has he yet played at the top level for the national team, which is the senior team. Having read through the sources, he also does not meet the primary inclusion criterion in my view since, despite the number of citations, there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully professional league. It is fairly well referenced but in my opinion he also fails the general notability guidelines because all the coverage of him is routine sports journalism which doesn't count per WP:NTEMP. -- Big Dom 20:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I originally had "keep" here but I'm changing to delete as I'm convinced on a more thorough reading of the sources that the coverage is not significant. Also, I'm generally loathe to extend [[WP:ATH] any further than it already is for footballers. I would suggest userfication to anyone who wants it because this guy might not be too far off meeting WP:ATH. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 00:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 05:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well constructed, well sourced article that represents encyclopedic knowledge --Tmckeage (talk) 07:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-referenced article that indicates wider notability, and he has played for both Wales under-21 and in the Football Conference, which is a notable level of football. Eldumpo (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2010 (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.