Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reece Hall-Johnson

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, players meets WP:NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reece Hall-Johnson[edit]

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

Has never played in a fully-professional league or at international level, in this case for a club in the English Premier League or Football League. No significant coverage that would suggest the player is notable outside of the current criteria. Monty (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL having played in an EFL Cup match for Norwich against Crawley Town, BBC match report. Kosack (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per above, and noted in the article, he did play for 25 minutes in a League Cup match between two fully-professional teams. Nfitz (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Fair enough, that was an oversight on my part. I don't know how to close this, but it's pretty self-evident that I was mistaken in nominating the article for deletion - and reading it again, I have no idea how I missed that... Monty (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2017 (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.