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 keep. I'm closing this as a keep due to the fact that when you separate the !votes, we have 3 editors who believe the article should be kept and provide (evidence based) policy reasoning behind that. There's one editor who !votes delete but doesn't leave a policy based reason behind it and never replied to the follow up questions from other editors wishing to engage in discussion. The remaining editor who !voted delete was countered by the three editors with strong policy based arguments that effectively cancelled out their reasoning behind the delete. Had the other delete !vote editor have used policy based reasoning this would have gone towards a no consensus, however, that's not the case tonight. I believe enough discussion has taken place here and we've asked enough of the community's time in discussing this. It seems as though the discussion is done as nobody has commented on this since April 5th since it was relisted last time. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 08:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Bockhorn[edit]

Herbert Bockhorn (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)

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, as the player has never made an appearance in a fully professional league, has never made a senior international appearance, and has no solid independent notability. S.A. Julio (talk) 06:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 06:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 06:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 07:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 07:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer rumours and national team squads are WP:ROUTINE coverage, at the moment it is WP:TOOSOON. S.A. Julio (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Far from routine - or rather if such coverage were routine we would delete a whole lot of footballers. This guy has more coverage than most lower league players that pass NFOOTY. Seems he is a signicant prospect for top-tier play.Icewhiz (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does this mean? He's been playing for several years. SportingFlyer T·C 00:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with Fleet in being (exerting influence without ever leaving port), football prospects may be notable even if they haven't played yet in a NFOOTY league. Icewhiz (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be WP:ROUTINE coverage based off inclusion in a preliminary squad. S.A. Julio (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kawowo is one of the most important Ugandan football sources, PML Daily have profiled him, Swift Sports wrote an article just because he wasn't going to appear in the Tanzania game, [9], and the BBC mentioned his call-up specifically in an article (that was routine and not WP:SIGCOV, but shows importance.) None of this is routine coverage - it's all on him specifically. SportingFlyer T·C 00:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – You're correct, the ICC games don't count towards WP:NFOOTY, as they were in preseason and therefore aren't considered "competitive games". 21.colinthompson (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:26, 2 April 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.