Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angus Gilmour


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. The dispute over WP:ROUTINE aside, significant coverage from a single outlet would not satisfy WP:GNG. RL0919 (talk) 09:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Angus Gilmour

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails GNG, NBAD and BIO. No coverage found online, and achievements are not enough to provide assumptions of notability via SNG. Timothytyy (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton,  and Scotland. Timothytyy (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep there were some online news used Angus Gilmour as subject on their article. 1, 2. Stvbastian (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Source 2 does not provide SIGCOV. As both sources are from the same website, any proof of reliability for it? Or is this a case of ROUTINE? Timothytyy (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Source #1 is enough to satisfied SIGCOV. You can check the reliability by ur self. Stvbastian (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Stvbastian It fails GNG because that source is WP:ROUTINE. Timothytyy (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Both articles above are routine coverage and do not demonstrate significant reliable coverage exists. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Article #1 clearly have a sigcov of Angus Gilmour. All sentences talks about Gilmour.Stvbastian (talk) 04:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In case you missed the other message, that article is just ROUTINE. Please find more SIGCOV if you still believe it passes GNG. Timothytyy (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In case you missed wht is and is not routine. The article not "just routine" at all.. From head to toe talks about Gilmour, that means the article hve sigcov of Gilmour. Stvbastian (talk) 07:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you know what routine is, but an article that wouldn't appear if he didn't win the title is definitely not GNG-contributing. Timothytyy (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. Why article #1 not a routine-> thts not about just a sport scores (especially the sources not a "box scores"; see: WP:NOTROUTINE) There were some detail facts in the article, tht means the article clearly have sigcov of Angus Gilmour not just a routine as u said.Stvbastian (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * These are the only parts where coverage is provided.
 * Let's discuss on whether this makes the subject pass GNG. Timothytyy (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Clearly sigcov and not a routine article as you said.. Here i give u example the routine article -> 3.. Thanks Stvbastian (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I can't see anything about badminton at your link. Can you put the correct link here? Thanks a lot!
 * For source 1 there are only quotes from the player and "Gilmour has been a full time player for the past season. He is a member of Badminton Scotland’s Junior High Performance squad and has been supported by the West of Scotland Institute of Sport for the past five years." which is not coverage and therefore may not be able to demonstrate GNG. Timothytyy (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * don't act like u don't understand lah. As i said above, the link #3 is an "example" for WP:ROUTINE article (article that only show results of the tournament, without explanation). If you still dont understand, here another example for routine article -> 4. Still don't understand? need more example? feel free to ask me.. And for source #1, Angus Gilmour not just a trivial mention. Surpass trivial mention means the article is a sigcov, especially he is the main topic in the article. From head to toe we can get some detail about Angus Gilmour: -He is from Troon; -He won the Belgium Open; -At that time he was European #1 junior badminton player; He is a member of Badminton Scotland's Junior High Performance squad. Stvbastian (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Clearly sigcov and not a routine article as you said.. Here i give u example the routine article -> 3.. Thanks Stvbastian (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I can't see anything about badminton at your link. Can you put the correct link here? Thanks a lot!
 * For source 1 there are only quotes from the player and "Gilmour has been a full time player for the past season. He is a member of Badminton Scotland’s Junior High Performance squad and has been supported by the West of Scotland Institute of Sport for the past five years." which is not coverage and therefore may not be able to demonstrate GNG. Timothytyy (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * don't act like u don't understand lah. As i said above, the link #3 is an "example" for WP:ROUTINE article (article that only show results of the tournament, without explanation). If you still dont understand, here another example for routine article -> 4. Still don't understand? need more example? feel free to ask me.. And for source #1, Angus Gilmour not just a trivial mention. Surpass trivial mention means the article is a sigcov, especially he is the main topic in the article. From head to toe we can get some detail about Angus Gilmour: -He is from Troon; -He won the Belgium Open; -At that time he was European #1 junior badminton player; He is a member of Badminton Scotland's Junior High Performance squad. Stvbastian (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. The sources provided so far are ROUTINE. The first Daily Record article is plainly a routine announcement that he won a tournament, and furthermore offers little more than two sentences of non-quote coverage of him--nowhere close to SIGCOV even if it wasn't RotM. NOTNEWS states For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage, and ROUTINE expands with Planned coverage of scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine. Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches... NSPORT then implements these (non-exhaustive) definitions of "routine coverage" and "routine events" in its guidance on what contributes to SIGCOV for athletes. The article on winning the Belgium Open was planned coverage of a scheduled event and would have been written regardless of who won it; it is ROUTINE. JoelleJay (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ROUTINE examples: Modern-day sporting events appear regularly in blogs or in local news as sports scores (sometimes called "box scores") "without details". Such box scores are examples of routine coverage. And the article not just such a box scores. routine coverage" is not a disqualification for notability. Stvbastian (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Where are you getting that definition? I am quoting the description and examples of routine coverage in our policies and guidelines, which override anything said in essays. JoelleJay (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup i do also gettin the definition based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines WP:NOTROUTINE. Stvbastian (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTROUTINE is an essay. JoelleJay (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Routine or not, I just don't think the above sources are significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2023 (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.