- 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. Not a valid deletion argument at all. postdlf (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Smash and Dash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
These are "former" nicknames and they are rarely used anymore. Natg 19 (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep disambiguation pages don't fall under the normal notability guidelines as they are used to refer and direct searches for subjects. I believe they link to notable articles (and that's not questioned) so we should probably keep this.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep, valid disambiguation page. Meets MOS:DABMENTION. Boleyn (talk) 05:07, 26 August 2013 (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.