Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bow bearer


 * 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. Appeals must go to the court of attachment. W.marsh 21:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Bow bearer

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

orphaned page, nothing more than definition. proposing deletion per WP:NOT Rtphokie (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Transwiki to Wiktionary. Entry found in OED. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-12-09 16:01Z
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article is about a sub-official in the English law of royal forestry.  I can't say that it can never be expanded from its current state, and given the nature of the subject, I think it ought to be kept even if this stub exhausts the subject. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep If it was good enough for the 1728 Cyclopaedia, it's good enough for Wikipedia! Emeraude (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. What a cute little stub. Useful from an historical standpoint, and unlikely ever to get many web sources, but I'll need time to find print cites.  I've linked it to WP:LAW. Bearian (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, nice! Keep, definitely!! Per all 3 of the above :) Can surely be expanded. FT2 (Talk 20:50, 20 December 2007 (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.