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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Kstern (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Boxall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Not a notable topic. All sources reference a single incident that is not notable in itself. Kstern (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator New content added by Cabrils makes the subject of this article appear notable. Kstern (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have significantly expanded and cleaned up the page, adding numerous IRS sources. The page now clearly passes GNG. Cabrils (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - clearly notable and meets WP:GNG. Deus et lex (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2021 (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.