Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Bastock

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 per WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 09:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bastock

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

Does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL, so should be deleted... do you agree? JMHamo (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Played more than 100 games in the Football League, which I'd have thought just about passes WP:NFOOTBALL... Please see WP:BEFORE. Struway2 (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I didn't think he played in the Football League, just for Conference side teams. JMHamo (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly meets NFOOTBALL, and on the way to meeting GNG. Nominator really needs to check sources before nominating. Giant Snowman 15:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He played in an English Third Division match (or Football League Two), which clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets guidlines. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets guidlines.Babylon77 (talk) 08:25, 11 December 2012 (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.