- 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 of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that it is a valuable asset to Wikipedia, but it didn't really desrve it's own article... I am not recommending a delete, but I wish to Merge it with the National Football League Page. --Hossmann 01:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep The NFL article is long enough as it is, and the practice squad article may grow a little. --Bachrach44 18:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In fact it doesn't look like the nomination is for deletion at all. Isn't there some GFDL issue about merging content and not keeping a record of its original title? I tend to agree with unsigned user above. TECannon 15:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why you leave a redirect at the original article. If you merged Practice squads to National Football League, and rewrote the 'Practice squads' page to redirect to the NFL page, it would be permissable under GFDL, as the original contribution history is maintained. Saberwyn 06:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep please by itself but tecannon is right too we cannot erase this Yuckfoo 19:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean up. This has potential, and I agree that the NFL article is long enough already. Jacqui ★ 05:41, 29 October 2005 (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.