Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberley Clague


 * 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. No prejudice against re-creation with appropriate additional sources. I'm happy to undelete into draft space for anyone who wants to provide and cite those sources. –Darkwind (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Kimberley Clague

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NBADMINTON. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep secondary sources writing about her. 2 examples: 1, 2 SportsOlympic (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Those are all trivial mentions of the subject and do not meet GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ahh, sorry added them to quickly. But you would have find sources if you would have done WP:BEFORE. Sources without trivial mentions: her for example with a full paragraph about her. Not only her results but also about her work. See also a video of a short Manx Radio article and interview here. Here an article she was leading during the opening ceremony. I can add more, but this it enough meeting GNG. SportsOlympic (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete a few trivial mentions do not notability make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Three times participant of the Commonwealth Games CGF profile, 2018. Independent sources and mentions are available, too (see above) as well as: "HISTORY MAKER!! Badminton player Kim Clague wins a fourth successive doubles title at the Island Games." Google: 400 hits for "Kim Clague" badminton, 500 hits for "Kimberley Clague" badminton Florentyna (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Again all of that fails WP:NBADMINTON and all sources provided do not meet GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, I showed examples of articles meeting GNG like this one, this one and this one. More of those examples available. SportsOlympic (talk) 06:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment, does a participant in multiple Commonwealth Games meet WP:SPORTBASIC ie. "if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level", although the Olympics is given as an example, the CG are also major. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. The Commonwealth Games has no qualification criteria. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I lived in GB during the 2014 Games and it had massive media attention every day. You think it because you say the CG doesn't have qualification critera, but there are, see for instance Weightlifting at the 2018 Commonwealth Games – Qualification. SportsOlympic (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have a few comments on some of the above statements. The Commonwealth Games are not considered the highest level of any sport, so just appearing there grants no WP notability.  In previous AfD discussions, depending upon the sport, some have argued that winning a medal at the CG shows notability but that is not a factor in this case.  Most Commonwealth sports do not require qualifying although weightlifting did for the first time in 2018.  TV coverage doesn't provide notability (WP:NOTNEWS) or tens of thousands of college football players would earn notability every year. Papaursa (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails to meet WP:NBAD. Currently unranked and highest world rankings ever were 1039 in singles and 928 in women's doubles with the BWF website showing zero match victories in any of their competitions.  Success at the Island Games doesn't provide WP notability and the coverage can be considered routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Notability is not about achievements, but about coverage. SportsOlympic (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but the two are not unrelated. That's why the SNGs exist. I think the coverage is routine sports reporting, passing mentions, and WP:NOTNEWS so that WP:GNG is not met. Papaursa (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per WP:SPORTBASIC. Stvbastian (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:SPORTBASIC talks about competing at the highest level. The Commonwealth Games are not that level and there's been no case made that every competitor at those Games is automatically notable.  Her coverage is typical of any athlete at the CG and   the Island Games are too minor an event for success to show notability, especially with coverage being dominated by routine sports reporting.  Since she clearly fails WP:NBAD, can you show she meets WP:GNG by linking the significant independent coverage of her that is above the reporting expected of any athlete at the CG? Papaursa (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep as per User:SportsOlympic. Florentyna (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Ambox warning pn.svg — Duplicate vote: Florentyna (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.  –Darkwind (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * None of those sources meet GNG as pointed above, and the article fails WP:NBADMINTON. Clear deletion. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2020 (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.