Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Glen


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. There is disagreement over whether GNG can be demonstrated by sources but a clear consensus that this article should be Kept. I don't see any value in relisting with this clear of a consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 05:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Robert Glen

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

The only reference for this stub biography of a footballer is a database entry, so this stub no longer satisfies sports notability and does not satisfy general notability. Draftification will provide six months to find significant coverage.


 * Draftify as nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football,  and Scotland. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment: while I am aware of the changed notability criteria, seems a bit odd to go straight to AfD for a subject like this where the article already existed for some years under the old rules, would it not be more appropriate to tag for verification first, then move up from that if not acted on? It seems very likely this player will appear in the British Newspaper Archive and there are far more 'deserving' nominations from this era than an international player and cup winner? I have added refs that indicate his prominence, but appreciate they would not satisfy SIGCOV. Crowsus (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. Absurd nomination. This player represented his country and won national competitions. If that doesn't satisfy notability then this place is a complete waste of time. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - clearly notable. 200 professional appearances in England and Scotland, a Scotland international, there is coverage out there including in Paul Smith's book about Scotland players - silly nomination. Good work by Crowsus and JM on expanding. GiantSnowman 09:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Again the Keeps make n:football arguments despite it being abolished in 2022. I struggled to find coverage of him let alone significant coverage. The book is one source (if that) meaning he fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "I struggle to find coverage of him" - apart from the 13 refs in the article? Do you really think that a player with 200 professional appearances in 1890s/1900s will not have been mentioned in any newspapers that (shockingly!) don't appear online 130 years later? We have lost all WP:COMMONSENSE if this article is deleted. GiantSnowman 21:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You mean the refs to stat websites? The refs to mentions in match reports? All of which don't count when it comes to passing GNG. Mentions in newspapers is irrelevant as it is sigcov that is required. Dougal18 (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Two books about the history of Hibernian FC describing Glen's career and playing style isn't significant coverage? Come off it. You just don't like articles about footballers. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The Hibees has 13 hits for Glen. The making of Hibernian has one hit. Those are not sigcov. Dougal18 (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Coverage in four published books isn't significant coverage? I'm wondering what you would consider that to be. A book about the player himself?!? Demanding that level of coverage would lead to the deletion of the vast majority of biographies on this site. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Good to know that a few sentences in a few books is now significant coverage. "Left back Bobby Glen from Renton had several international honours. Strong and clever, he was a favourite of the supporters and was recently at the top of his form." If that is sigcov then GNG should be scrapped. Dougal18 (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - I would strongly agree with User:GiantSnowman's and User:Jmorrison230582's points. I think it would be odd for us not to have an article about a Scotland international who clearly is covered in published sources. Dunarc (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has been updated, clearly notable player, easily passes WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep – The Paul Smith's book It already seemed to be enough for WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG, also has fine sources that attribute significant coverage. Noorullah (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - Responding to Jmorrison230582, the article didn't say that his team won national competitions when I nominated it for deletion, and the nomination was not absurd. Govvy is correct that the article has been updated.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - Perhaps I should have said that the Heymann criterion was to provide significant coverage in seven days, but perhaps that should be implied. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2024 (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.