Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy Bell (footballer, born 1923)


 * 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 snow keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience  t 20:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Tommy Bell (footballer, born 1923)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No refs TJH2018   talk  16:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Being unrefed does not equal being non-notable. Individual should easily pass the football notability. And see WP:BEFORE too.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I've now added some stats listings which show subject meets WP:NFOOTY. But there's no evidence of the "professionalism" which this woolly and hare-brained guideline relies upon. Also a distance short of WP:GNG. Bring back Regi Blinker (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly meets WP:NFOOTY; played over 300 games in the Football League. Added more references and expanded. Number   5  7  23:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Care to make a WP:GNG-based argument? Sure there's listings in dusty stats compendiums, but where's the coverage? Where's the evidence of (that wikipedia-specific concept) "fully-professionalism"? Bring back Regi Blinker (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, welcome back Clavdia; your comments and attitude betray your former identity. Seeing as this is a player who played in the 1940s and 1950s and died before the internet age, the coverage is presumably in the print media of the era, but sadly this isn't easily available online unless you have access to the archives. Thankfully it appears Struway2 may have access, as he's added some coverage from the Daily Mirror. It's also disappointing (although not at all suprising) to see you bringing up the "wikipedia-specific concept" canard again. You were party to plenty of discussions in which it was pointed out that this is not the case, but for the benefit of the closing admin, here are just a few of the multitude of BBC Sport stories that reference this:
 * Truro City will become a fully professional side if they gain promotion to the National League.
 * Torquay United chief executive Steve Breed says he wants the club to continue being fully professional
 * However, the club have remained fully professional.
 * Where we really want to get to is 24 fully-professional women's teams...
 * Accrington Stanley's switch to full-time status in the summer will take the number of fully professional clubs in the Conference to 12
 * His aim is to turn the club fully professional
 * But with the Conference now almost fully professional
 * This season, several clubs have opted to step up to full-time status to ensure they are even better prepared for the jump to the fully professional stage
 * Number  5  7  11:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NFOOTY and 's evidence. A league player of that pedigree would easily meet GNG today, and I'm sure did in the print sources of the day. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly passes WP:NFOOTBALL, by a country mile. What is the project to gain by deleting articles that meet our notability requirements? Mattythewhite (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - over 300 appearances in the Football League? Clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Number 57 and Passes WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Obviously meets current consensus around notability. Fenix down (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - per above. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep The article in it's current state clearly passes WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as he appears to meet the WP:NFOOTBALL requirements. Ejgreen77 (talk) 09:58, 13 April 2016 (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.