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 delete. Sam Walton (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Blackhawks[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG — Rod ^talk 13:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's unlikely notable and I see no better improvement. Notifying GiantSnowman who may have some football insight. SwisterTwister talk 23:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: - the wrong type of football! Giant Snowman 09:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not seem to pass WP:ORG or WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 18:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG Spiderone 12:40, 21 November 2015 (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.