Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gwyn Williams


 * 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. ‑Scottywong | comment _ 23:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Gwyn Williams

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does he qualify through notability for a page? Telfordbuck (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 15:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Doesn't he pass WP:NFOOTBALL as he managed Leeds United, even though it was just for one match as caretaker? Mentoz86 (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley (what's up) 02:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Keep - seems to qualify through being caretaker manager of a professional side, per this discussion at WT:FOOTY. Reference has been added to the article to confirm. C 679 13:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - my question above has been answered in the discussion linked by Cloudz679, so this guy passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Scrapes over the line per NFOOTY, although I wouldn't call that discussion consensus with only three comments. However, does seem to fail GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY and appears to just scrape past the WP:GNG. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Uber Strong Keep - Whether his caretaker role at Leeds was enough is totally irrelevant - he was the assistant manager at Chelsea at one point. That on its own is enough to keep the article! is definitely beyond WP:ROUTINE as well. Luke no 94  (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to just pass WP:NFOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. He does just about pass NFOOTY, but that is not relevant as he fails GNG. The articles mentioned above are a two line one on him leaving Chelsea, hardly significant coverage, and one about him being a scout, which discusses players he has brought in or the general scouting process, more than him. A search for ""Gwyn Williams" Chelsea", throws up only passing mentions. Fenix down (talk) 12:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * - more than a passing mention about his Leeds role. Here's another article containing an interview with him: . Those aren't routine things. There are also a few other things in less reliable sources that could be used to flesh out the article. He passes GNG based on the sources I've found. Luke no 94  (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Plenty of articles at AfD have failed GNG but been retained due to their passing NFOOTY, so it's hard to understand your comments about failing GNG being the only point of consideration. Multiple independent sources have been shown to cover the individual, such as those from Lukeno94, so the point about him failing GNG isn't convincing either. C 679 20:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.