Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas de Bodham

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. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas de Bodham

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A new pages patroller has left this on my talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bashereyre#Proposed_deletion_of_Thomas_de_Bodham

I have had two similar articles proposed recently so......

please read this one Bashereyre (talk) 06:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John_Plemth[reply]

and then this one Bashereyre (talk) 06:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Tuttebury[reply]

to see if it should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashereyre (talk • contribs) 06:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I thiought we allowed articles on Archdeacons. The problem here is probably that he was suhc an early one that little is known of him. The alternative might be to merge with the archdeacons list article, but that is inteneded to be a mere list. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google Books search finds plenty of sources, similar articles have been kept, and the PRODer gave no reasons at all for deletion. Yes, it's a stub, but that can be fixed by normal editing. -- 202.124.72.39 (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't come up with a policy-based reason to delete. --No unique names 05:20, 6 October 2012 (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.