Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darron Gee

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. Stifle (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darron Gee

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

Never play for or managed a league football club Telfordbuck (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - notable football manager, got promoted and took his team to the FA Trophy final. Jonesy702 (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whilst article is well sourced, agree with GS that there is no real significant coverage. Although there is BBC news articles, these are very brief and outline only basic facts rather than providing in depth information. In some instances, mention of Gee is tangential to the source's actual subject. Fenix down (talk) 09:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: [1] is a newspaper source substantially about the subject. Multiple references to BBC coverage. This is just in the article. Without looking at sources beyond what is in the article, notability seems established. Unclear from other deletes if the commenters looked externally to see if media coverage existed and instead are relying purely on what is found in the article to say coach fails
WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 05:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep 27 citations! I think that's enough to just pass
WP:NFOOTBALL? Govvy (talk) 12:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. No it does not, as NFOOTY clearly only mentions managers, not assistant managers. As has been noted above as well, this is not an AfD based on the number of citations in the article, but the significance of them. they are almost all tiny little articles which essentially state only one or two facts. Significant coverage as required by GNG does not exist as far as I can see. One local newspaper source and a handful of BBC news articles which essentially state either "he joined this club" or "he left this club" with no other detail do not equate to substantial coverage. Fenix down (talk) 12:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - bearing in mind
WP:NFOOTY is irrelevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:31, 26 February 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.