Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elliot Knight


 * 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 -- JForget  01:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Elliot Knight

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod (no reason given). Fails WP:BIO as he has never played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ  5  7  00:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  00:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. According to the article he hasn't even joined the senior squad yet. Definately not notable. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 00:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * He will start in July and the article does not lie at all. There will inevitably be an article created anyway so there's no point in deleting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanMerrett (talk • contribs) 01:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like WP:CRYSTAL to me. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  01:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Richard O'Donnell was deleted recently for this very reason. He will almost certainly play his first game tomorrow and an article can then be created, but it has taken him 18 months to get this far after joining the senior squad. If and when Elliot Knight actually plays a game then the article can be easily recreated. Your argument basically boils down to "it isn't doing any harm" which isn't in itself a reason to keep an article. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 01:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, yet to play a professional game. If he does this, then article can be recreated, but until then he does not appear to be particularly notable.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC).
 * Delete per Lankiveil. Does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia at this time. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Eddie6705 (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Well, it is a well writen article (sorta), and I wouldn't mind it being here except it fails WP:BIO. 76.235.63.26 (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * About that above comment, that was me but I forgot I wasn't logged in. Sorry.  K im  u  16:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete See all above. Can, of course, be remade once notable. Mm40 (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.