Jump to content

Talk:Gary Williams

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Is Gary Williams really from New Jersey? He is categorized as such but the only reference to him being from New Jersey is coaching there at the high school level. Tkessler 07:44, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

http://umterps.collegesports.com/sports/m-baskbl/mtt/williams_gary00.html Yes, his home town on the maryland site is listed as Collingswood, N.J.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.35.232.241 (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. In A March to Madness, Feinstein descibes Williams growing up in South Jersey, and sneaking into Big 5 games at the Palestra. Williams still recruits that area heavily: as a way-outside observer, it seems like he has better relationships with the Jersey coaches than with the coaches in Maryland. Jim Hardy (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that he hasn't brought in a South Jersey/Philly player in over 10 years (Danny Miller was the last), that statement is wrong. --CutOffTies (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, Miller was the last? Jim Hardy (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of..Miller came in 1998.. subsequently:
  • 1999 - Drew Nicholas (Long Island), Tahj Holden (Red Bank, New Jersey) - I'm no New Jersey expert, but I don't think that's south jersey
  • 2000 - Wilcox (North Carolina)
  • 2001 - Andre Collins (Maryland eastern shore)
  • 2002 - Nik Caner Medley (Maine), Chris McCray (DC area), John Gilchrist (Virginia Beach), Travis Garrison (DC area), Jamar Smith (Sicklerville, New Jersey)/Junior College in Western Maryland
  • 2003 - Fofana (Mass./Africa), Ebekwe (California), DJ Strawberry (California), Mike Jones (Boston)
  • 2004 - James Gist (Maryland)
  • 2005 - Dave Neal (NOVA)
  • 2006 - Osby (Richmond/New Mexico JC), Vasquez (Maryland), Eric Hayes (NOVA)
  • 2007 - Bowie (Maryland), Tucker (Texas)
  • 2008 - Choi (South Korea/CT), Mosley (Baltimore)
  • 2009 - Jordan Williams (CT), Padgett (Brooklyn)
  • 2010 - Stoglin (AZ), Howard (California), Weijs (PA/Holland), Hawk (Iceland/Florida), Parker (Charlottesville), Pankey (North Jersey)
  • 2011 - Martin Breunig (MN/Germany), Gibbs (North Jersey), Faust (Baltimore)
So Smith and possibly Holden are the possible exceptions. Two players over 10+ years --CutOffTies (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So that's been the problem these past 9 years. Gary's gotten away from his Jersey roots.  ;-) Jim Hardy (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperhidrosis

[edit]

I'm going to respectfully disagree with the user who submitted this and remove this item, as it is not factual and arises more from a cursory observation of the coach.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.171.254 (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

[edit]

I have deleted the picture of Gary Williams with "coeds" as that picture was inappropriate for this site. A headshot would be appropriate, not one of him making a funny face. -PhattyFatt 02:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have once again deleted the picture. Please cease from posting that image, as it is still not appropriate for this article. -PhattyFatt 15:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

[edit]

I protected this page due to the ongoing edit war. Please stop making accusations of vandalism back and forth. Neither adding nor removing that image is a clear act of vandalism. Presumably those removing the image feel that it is inappropriate / not a representative choice. Is there some other image which you think would be better? --CBD 22:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I will try to find a headshot of the coach. I feel that such an image would be more appropriate. -PhattyFatt 03:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Gay recruitment

[edit]

The Washington Post recently ran a three-part series on Maryland's skid since the national championship. The second part covers the Rudy Gay recruiting debacle and gives good insight into Williams' recruiting philosophy and his opinions about the AAU. If someone is so inclined, I think it warrants its own section in the article: It's A Whole New Ballgame, and Maryland's Williams Isn't Playing. Strikehold (talk) 08:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Debacle? Jim Hardy (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Violations under Wade

[edit]

In response to Blueboy's edits, can you please point out specifically in the citations where:

It says the violations were "massive"? The only thing I see is the in the Bryan Times newspaper, the NCAA described the violations as "major". That is not the same as massive (as said in my edit summary, "massive" violations would get the death penalty, though I don't know if massive is an appropriate word to use in any case here). Instead of using a vague, almost pov-ish term, how about drawing from the sources? If you want specifics, check out this NYT article:

Among the more serious violations against Wade, the sources said, were providing a leased car, cash payments of $272 and rides for a former Terrapins guard, Rudy Archer, before, during and after his one-season stay; giving free and discounted clothing to Alonzo Mourning and Brian Williams while they were being recruited; providing false and misleading information to N.C.A.A. investigators, and trying to get his assistant coaches to provide false and misleading information.

After reading that, if you still think it is massive, then I respectfully totally disagree. Also you may want to compare those violations against what other schools were found guilty of (SMU football, Kentucky basketball in the 80s, Miami football, USC football under Pete C., Michigan basketball in the 90s, etc.) to gain some perspective

After reading reaction from the school and Kirwan in the NYT article and the existing sources, perhaps you see why such a strong term is inappropriate, and needs more context. Just because the NCAA described it a certain way (still, not as "massive") does not necessarily mean that it should be simplified with one strong term.

Where in the reliable sources does it say that any of the violations were committed under Lefty? The only thing I found where you may got confused involves Jeff Adkins. He played for Lefty but was a coach under Wade and the incident with the ACC tourney tickets was when he was a coach under Wade. I don't see anything about "away game" tickets under Lefty. Where are you getting this from?

Thank you. I'll be eager to see what others think about this as well. --CutOffTies (talk) 22:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I called them "massive" was that Bob Wade ended up getting a five-year show-cause order. That's the harshest penalty a coach can get--you usually don't get that unless you're found guilty of pretty major violations. Plus, according to the NCAA infraction report, there were issues with complementary tickets for away games in Lefty's last season, 1985-86. Full disclosure--I'm a Carolina fan, but yet I was stunned to find out just how severe this was. Blueboy96 23:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The NCAA infractions report wasn't loading for me earlier, but did now. I think to be accurate and npov, it would be best to describe the violations as what the NCAA classified as "major" violations. Are you okay with this? --CutOffTies (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about this wording: "However, in March 1990, the NCAA imposed harsh sanctions on the school for several major violations, mostly dating to the Wade era." Blueboy96 01:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That looks great.. sorry for the late reply, was on vacation. --CutOffTies (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement

[edit]

I suggest that a visitor on this page on a later time would expand on his retirement, since much information is not available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshison (talk • contribs) 20:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Roman Spinner, a primary page should not redirect to a disambiguated title using brackets, and the hatnote is wrong here, cutting people off rom correct info. If you make a change like this, please check it over. Boleyn (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reminders of this nature are always welcome. The [briefly, as of this writing] misdirected links are, and have been, in the process of being revised so that these will point to proper sources. Due to the large number of such links, it may take a day or two, but the task will be completed as soon as possible. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted this move. This is sufficiently controversial and complicated that it should be discussed prior to being done. Of the pages listed at Gary Williams (disambiguation) which might conceivably compete for the Gary Williams title, the basketball coach is 10:1 the most popular in terms of incoming Wikipedia traffic hits and overwhelming in terms of Google hits as well. (Gary Anthony Williams actually wins the traffic hits by a large margin, but that article is already at its correct title.) As the basketball coach is the primary topic for the name Gary Williams, it makes sense for the basketball coach to be here and this should have an WP:RM if it is to be changed. --B (talk) 11:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 May 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Number 57 15:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– addition of parenthetical qualifier will enable subject's proper placement among at least 11 others named "Gary Williams" at the Gary Williams (disambiguation) page. Basketball coaches are not WP:PRIMARYTOPICs as witness, among many others who have parenthetical qualifiers attached to their names, Roy Williams (coach) who has had more wins than Gary Williams (basketball). Although there are, indeed, numerous links flowing to Gary Williams (basketball), many of those are templated and other links are there simply because of the large number of basketball templates and articles in Wikipedia, which highlight every minute aspect of the game, thus creating enormous numbers of links. Most disambiguation pages do not have a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and there is no such need here. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 08:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC) —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom In ictu oculi (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The reasons you give for the comparison to Roy Williams do not make any sense - unlike for Gary, there are other contenders for primary topics with that name. It doesn't matter how many wins someone has or any such nonsense. There is no rule against basketball coaches being primary topics or any such thing. If a particular topic gets the vast majority of g-hits, page views, or other quantifiable measure, then it is the "primary topic". It doesn't matter whether that primary topic is a basketball coach, a city, or a brand of pencil. Looking at g-hits, if I search for Roy Williams football, I get 469K hits and Roy Williams basketball, I get 484K. You can go to http://stats.grok.se/ and look at Wikipedia traffic statistics. Roy Williams (wide receiver) gets ballpark 80 hits/day. Roy Williams (safety) gets maybe 100 on average. Roy Williams (coach) gets a boatload during the basketball season, but now that the offseason is here, he's getting maybe 120 on average. None of these are a pronounced difference and so none of these should be a primary topic. It's different for Gary Williams, where the basketball coach is a far more recognized and searched for topic than any of the other contenders. --B (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1. Gary Williams is a very common name (11 entries, with Gary Williams (basketball) claimed as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), as is Roy Williams (17 entries, with none of those claimed as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). I invite those interested in this topic to glance at Category:American basketball coaches which has [as of this writing] 1,468 entries, with parenthetical qualifiers used for hundreds of those names, starting with "A", which has 9 disambiguated common names, including top-winning coach Ken Anderson (basketball), whose percentage ranks second highest in college basketball history.
2. Although, as already stated under above section header "Confusing links", "Gary Anthony Williams actually wins the traffic hits by a large margin, but that article is already at its correct title", Gary Anthony Williams was not made the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the Gary Williams (disambiguation) page [an, admittedly extreme, example of an inexact name is that of John F. Kennedy as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the John Kennedy (disambiguation) page]. Thus, even though there are 11 men, including Gary Anthony Williams and Gary W.C. Williams, listed at the Gary Williams (disambiguation) page, only those who bear this name in its exact form, such as Gary Williams (wrestler) or Gary Williams (singer) appear to be eligible for consideration as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
3. There is a reason why most disambiguation pages do not highlight a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, although a considerable number of minor personalities (whose sole claim to notability is a Wikipedia stub) are still indicated as various undiscussed WP:PRIMARYTOPICs simply because no Wikipedians have as yet challenged such designations. The selection of a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should be the result of a discussion with a consensus vote based upon the subject's long-term historical standing. Traffic statistics and Google hits should not be the overriding criteria, otherwise Pokémon characters and other pop culture phenomena would overwhelm all attempts at setting notability standards. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 09:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what is done for other basketball coaches. The only thing that matters is whether or not Gary Williams the basketball coach "is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term". What are most people looking for when they type in "Gary Williams"? Google hits and page hits are a good measure of that. The cricketer has 131 page views over the last 90 days. The wrestler has 611. The singer has 821. The CFL player has 252. The Ausie footballer has 77. The football (soccer) players have 317, 731, and 144. Gary Williams (basketball), which has only even existed for four days, has 150 hits in just that time. Gary Williams has 14,003 hits in the last 90 days. That's far in excess of all of the others combined. Of course, a good chunk of that was because people searched his name during basketball season. But even in the last 30 days, he has 1867 page views. This is exactly what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says - a topic is the primary topic if it is far more likely that someone entering the search term is looking for that topic than any of the other topics (or even all of the other topics combined). By the way, apparently, Gary Anthony Williams is in his "busy" season right now - if you go back 90 days, he has 8725 hits in that time. So the basketball coach's 90-day numbers STILL beat all of the Gary Williamses (including Gary Anthony Williams) combined. --B (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If Google hits and traffic statistics (seasonal or otherwise) were sufficient reasons for determining a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, then every disambiguation page would have a primary topic, which would have been selected on that basis. Analogous comparisons to others in the same profession are, indeed, relevant. There are a number of basketball coaches with more-impressive records than Gary Williams whose names nevertheless carry parenthetical qualifiers rather than dominate their disambiguation pages by looming in unique separation at the top of such pages. As with all widely-popular sports, basketball does, of course, have its WP:PRIMARYTOPIC superstars and household names, but those are players, or former players, such as Michael Jordan, not coaches, or retired coaches such as Gary Williams whose last game was in 2011 and whose current title is given as "Special Assistant to the Athletic Director". Consensus will ultimately have to determine if such is sufficient for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC status, Google hits notwithstanding. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 11:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, again, the guideline that you have linked 100 times tells exactly what determines whether there is a primary topic. "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." There is no WP:Votes for Primary topicship or any such nonsense like that. Everyone eventually retires and/or dies. It doesn't matter that Williams' current job sounds uninteresting. He could be a janitor. IT DOESN'T MATTER. The only question is whether or not it is much more likely that people searching for Gary Williams are searching for the basketball coach than it is that they are searching for someone else named Gary Williams. --B (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1. And to reiterate, again, that very guideline for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, with this link highlighted for the 101st time, may still be challenged as to its applicability in each specific case, with the traffic and Google statistics, of course, taken into account as a factor. An insightful analogy may be made with the insistence by a few determined Australian Wikipedians that Bob Brown, a retired Australian leader of a minor political party, who had never held national office, was predominant among 20 others named "Bob Brown". A WP:Votes for Primary topicship was, indeed, conducted on this subject (Talk:Bob Brown/Archive 1#Requested move) and the Australian contingent prevailed. Most of the same arguments have been presented at other such discussions. Such is the nature of consensus.
2. As for the other point, that of historical notability versus seasonal notability [for sports figures bearing common names], there are [as of this writing] 39 others listed on the Muhammad Ali (disambiguation) page, but there are few, if any, challenges to the retired heavyweight's position as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Michael Jordan no longer plays professional basketball and there are currently 11 others listed within the Michael Jordan (disambiguation) page, but no one is presuming to challenge his positioning. Ted Williams has not been with us for 13 years, but others upon the Ted Williams (disambiguation) page are not seen as matching his fame. Walter Johnson died in 1946, but the 10 others at the Walter Johnson (disambiguation) page did not achieve the same level of fame. Nothing, however, can be considered obvious or predetermined and WP:CONSENSUS may change. If Gary Williams (basketball) does have such lasting fame at this point in his progression, the votes will sustain him. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comparisons to other more or less famous people are irrelevant. It doesn't matter if Gary Williams is as famous as Michael Jordan. It doesn't matter if Gary Williams is as famous as some other guy named Michael Jordan who does not play basketball. The ONLY THING that matters is whether it is far more likely that someone searching for "Gary Williams" is searching for the basketball coach than it is they are searching for something else. --B (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Every disambiguation page has an entry that receives more links, traffic and Google searches than some other entry or entries on that page. That fact does not suggest that the most-trafficked entry should immediately become the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, otherwise all disambiguation pages would have primary topics and Wikipedians, who may be so inclined, would militate for their favorite "Charles Brown" or their favorite "Robert Williams" to become the top man on his respective dab page. An argument has been made that primary topics (which are always subjective, Google traffic notwithstanding) should be abolished and easy redirects created for those who already know for whom they are searching. Initials such as JFK and LBJ are simple, while others, such as Gary Bruce Williams or Gary Williams basketball (basically, a parenthetical qualifier without the parentheses) could be created. Since such minority view, however, is unlikely to be accepted, we will have to wait for the result of a vote along the lines of Talk:Bob Brown/Archive 1#Requested move. Whether or not Bob Brown receives the greatest number of Google searches does not appear to be as important as the fact that he has a group of dedicated supporters who are ready to vote for his retention as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. We shall see if Gary Williams has similarly loyal support. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"We shall see if Gary Williams has similarly loyal support" ... or ... we could decide it based on what the rules say - whether it is highly likely that someone searching for "Gary Williams" is looking for this Gary Williams. It shouldn't be decided based on whether a bunch of Twerp fans show up to defend their coach. It's not a vote. It's a discussion about how best to apply the guideline. --B (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1. If it was such a cut-and-dry process of deciding "based on what the rules say", there would be no need to indicate that "this should have an WP:RM if it is to be changed" and that "It's a discussion about how best to apply the guideline". Since the rules are presented as being such hard-and-fast indicators on this subject, not only is it "not a vote", there would not even be a need for the previously-mentioned discussion — there would only be one way, or the highway. We would simply find within each disambiguation who would be the most-sought-after individual and — there it is — the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
2. Surely, among the 74 entries at the Charles Brown (disambiguation) page, there must be one who is more-sought-after than any other "Charles Brown". Surely, among the 69 entries at the Robert Williams (disambiguation) page, there must be one who is more-sought-after than any other "Robert Williams". There are numerous other examples with those named "Smith", "Johnson", "Wilson", etc. A household name such as James Stewart was made the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the James Stewart (disambiguation) page, but Bob Brown was made the top man as the result of a vote, whether or not he may the most-sought-after "Bob Brown". The guidelines are applied "best", "worst" or "indifferently", depending on what consensus decides in each case. So far, very few seem to care one way or the other about "Gary Williams". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 11:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It's not about whichever topic gets the most usage. It's about whether any one topic gets more usage than the others combined. So, there can be three topics, and if they get 45%, 30%, 25%, there is no primarytopic. On the other hand, there can be 20 topics, and if they get 72%, 2%, 2%, 2%, ..., then there is a primarytopic. For the topic at hand, if we look at page views from last month, we get:
This means that the current article got 78 percent of the traffic for "Gary Williams" last month. Even discounting for the people who may have been looking for a different Gary Williams, that adds up to a primarytopic by usage. (Note that the other entries on the dab page are WP:PARTIALTITLEMATCHes. In particular, Gary Anthony Williams, with 7558 views, is almost exclusively known as "Gary Anthony Williams", and the other two, Gary W.C. Williams, 94 views; and Garry Williams (Australian footballer), 224 views, are lightly viewed articles in any event.) This Gary Williams also gets the bulk of coverage among the WP:NOTABLE topics in Google Books (see this search). Dohn joe (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The primary purpose of disambiguation on Wikipedia is to aid the reader's navigation. In this case, as shown by the stats pulled by Dohn joe, the proposed change would run counter to the proven intentions of a strong majority of readers. Basing our decision of of arbitrary opinions on what indvidual editors might consider "important" enough instead of using the hard facts would just be silly.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. As far as "arbitrary" opinions/actions are concerned, the undiscussed placement of Gary Williams (basketball) as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC unbalances traffic statistics since all "Gary Williams" traffic goes to Gary Williams, presently occupied by Gary Williams (basketball), and then proceeds to the Gary Williams (disambiguation) page and, from there, continues to whichever "Gary Williams" was the target of the search. A more-determinative measure (as far as the true nature of such searches is concerned) would be to move Gary Williams to Gary Williams (basketball) for a year and then, if need be, have another WP:RM if the dedicated article for Gary Williams (basketball) still receives considerably more usage than all the others.
2. As for the issue of WP:PARTIALTITLEMATCHes, those are normally understood to be inapplicable entries which feature another surname, such as Gary Williams Smith or Gary Williams Jones, but even if we consider applicable entries Gary Anthony Williams and Gary W.C. Williams to be partial matches (since those two individuals are generally known by their full names, Wikipedia users searching for them would not, presumably, initially input "Gary Williams"), all the others are not "partial matches", because (other than for the parenthetical qualifier) their names, analogous to the name of the basketball coach, is simply "Gary Williams". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 15:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. You're right that I should have presented the disambiguation page views as well. In April, the dab page was viewed just 124 times. Even if you assume that all of those views started at this page, that still leaves 3,193 views at this page, which amounts to 75% of the views for "Gary Williams" articles.
  2. As for partial title matches, that's the definition I used. I included all the "Gary Williams" articles in the comparison. Dohn joe (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Traffic volume notwithstanding, my previously mentioned concern has also been Gary Williams (basketball)'s level of notability in comparison with other more-highly-rated coaches who are not WP:PRIMARYTOPICs, such as Roy Williams (coach) or Ken Anderson (basketball), among the 1,469 [last week, 1,468] entries at Category:American basketball coaches. A very stringent standard should be applied without regard to the number of entries on the disambiguation page, but, as the number grows, so does the severity of the standard. The 74 entries at the Charles Brown disambiguation page or the 69 entries at the Robert Williams disambiguation page have no primary topic and, recently, an apparent adherent of Bob Brown (Montana politician) forced an unsuccessful WP:RM challenge to the primacy of Australian Bob Brown (Talk:Bob Brown/Archive 1#Requested move) at the 21-entry Bob Brown (disambiguation) page. However, if traffic statistics are the overriding aspect by which even a very-heavily-populated page, such as the 151-entry John Williams (disambiguation) page is judged, then the television and film composer comes out, indeed, on top, as he presently does, over the other 150. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Per Dohn Joe and B, the traffic seems to indicate that this former basketball coach is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC on Wikipedia for the term "Gary Williams". I might support the proposal if there was some indication that the other "Gary Williams" topics had some substantial long-term historical significance, but I don't see such an argument being made here. I generally support the idea of looking beyond current popularity, but here I don't see any indication that the other topics have great notability or historical importance. (And it sounds like people looking for "Gary Anthony Williams" seem to generally include the "Anthony" in what they're looking for.) It doesn't matter whether the person is a coach or not. What matters is that nearly everyone looking for "Gary Williams" seems to be looking for this person, and that none of the other candidate "Gary Williams" topics seem to have great importance or interest. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Being a basketball coach doesn't disqualify him for being the primary topic for the name. As others have pointed out, readers are far and away more likely to look for this Gary Williams than other people with the same name. Calidum T|C 23:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose of course, like basically everyone here. Primary topic, through and through, certainly from page views if not from long-term significance (could you make an argument for that, too?) Red Slash 22:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gary Williams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gary_Williams&oldid=1263204844"