Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idwal Robling

: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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

=[[Idwal Robling]]=

:{{la|Idwal Robling}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Idwal Robling}})

Barely did one season to a national audience as a supporting commentator, created just because he died also Ifore2010 (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

:By "national", I take it you mean UK as opposed to Wales? That is a very narrow definition. Deb (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I do, just one season on Match of the Day as a third rate commentator, also had appaling Google search results during his lifetime. Ifore2010 (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

:I expect you mean "appalling". Deb (talk) 09:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment - botched AfD nomination completed & logged for today (20 June). GiantSnowman 11:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - looks to have had a substantial enough career in television to merit obituaries in national publications. GiantSnowman 11:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - sufficient coverage for WP:GNG and having competed at the Olympics, he passes WP:ATHLETE. Favonian (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

:*He never actually played at the Olympics, so he doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE - but GNG is enough. GiantSnowman 12:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep Bevin Boy, 40 years as a radio sports commentator, BBC commentator on Match of the Day, picked for a GB Olympic squad. Easily passes GNG.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep' --- the article looks stable enough and has potential, and at least it was referenced twice. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 25 June 2011 (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.