Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bellingham Bells


 * 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. Any further merge or redirect discussions can be held on the article's talk page. Regards,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 14:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Bellingham Bells

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested redirect. Non-notable amateur sporting team, should be redirected to league page. Since it's a contested redirect, it should probably be fully protected too. tedder (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * note that even if redirected we don't normal protect over a content dispute, except briefly during an edit war. DES (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

— Jdstottle (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Allow page to stay. Seven of the nine West Coast League teams have dedicated pages and are not redirects. Additionally, other comparable teams in the Northwoods League all have dedicated pages and not redirects. —Preceding contribs) 17:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC) --Jdstottle (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS; that doesn't mean those pages shouldn't be deleted also. The issue is if the team (and the league) meet WP:CLUB, especially the "local chapters" bit. tedder (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the NAC close as clearly inappropriate. This should be allowed to run its course. Spartaz Humbug! 18:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Keep or redirect, obviously, preferably as a speedy keep. Nominator has not advanced an argument for deletion, and redirects are best discussed on talkpages. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions.  -- tedder (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  -- tedder (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Dylanfromthenorth has a point. No one has made an argument for deletion. An argument for deletion on notability could be made, but given the statements now in the article I expect notability could be established. Keep unless soem better reaosn for doing something else is presented. DES (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep- Close this down and take it to the talk page. Nobody has brought forth any reason for deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_March_21 for the last time this was speedy closed. DES (talk)!
 * I did, which is why I came here in the first place. The re-opening is pointless, but I'm not going to re-close it, since obviously a non-admin close isn't good enough. Perhaps I should rephrase it and say that an ADMIN should re-close it. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect per nom. We might have been able to handle it at the article talk page w/o bringing it to the wider AFD community, but now that it's here, we might as well evaluate on the merits. Ray  Talk 03:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge But do not protect. Also, keep edit history, since it is valuable for reviewing the article's past. Dew Kane (talk) 03:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep- There has been little debate worth validating a request for deletion. Close this down as it was previously done and keep the article.--66.165.45.18 (talk) 04:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * keep and discuss the merits of a redirect on the article's talk page. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2010 (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.