Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Plaskett

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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 04:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Plaskett

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable chess player. His only mentions in reliable sources seem to be in a Cif blog in The Guardian that isn't about him[1] and a couple of very brief mentions in the Evening Times[2]. Claims to have been a columnist for the New Statesman, but there is no evidence of this[3]. Appears likely to have constructed the page himself judging by the IPs. ← Randomnonsense ^talk 04:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You are quite mistaken. Plaskett is a notable chess player. His grandmaster title and former British Champion status are verifiable from within the article - just click on the appropriate links. As for the other stuff, that's all true too. Someone cleared out most of the sources recently, but there is still an edition of a newspaper quoted within the text, which relates to the only controversial matter in the article. Brittle heaven (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, being a GM is definitely not sufficient for notability, see for instance this discussion. Having won the British championship does not confer notability for a biographical article by any guideline I can see, it merely suggests that he should have an entry in the list on the British Chess Championship article. Looking at the removed sources they consist of 3 articles in The Mirror, 1 podcast and an article on a chess news site called Chessbase. I can only find evidence of 2 of those Mirror articles, the first is not about James Plaskett, the second is about his comments on a Who Wants to be a Millionaire controversy, not about him. The podcast is not about Plaskett but again about the Who Wants to be a Millionaire controversy. ← Randomnonsense ^talk 17:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The chess project never reached a conclusion about notability. I was one that argued that not all grandmasters are notable, but the general consensus of the chess project is that all grandmasters are notable and that the lower international masters are not notable, unless they are also writers, coaches, etc. I have never seen an article about a grandmaster deleted. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is notable in variable chess tournaments and is licensed from sources found on the news and recently new sources from daily news on google news.--GoShow (...............) 15:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide these sources? He does not appear in recent news from google[1]. Results in the google news archive seem to be very brief mentions in chess columns (which are WP:ROUTINE) and brief mentions in a few articles on a Who Wants to be a Millionaire controversy, not the significant coverage of Plaskett himself needed for a biographical article. ← Randomnonsense ^talk 17:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not see that Plaskett merits a biographical article based on the basic criteria in the notability guidelines for sportsmen or the more general guideline. Saying that he is a GM, British champion or appears in various tournaments doesn't fufil these criteria and there are no specific criteria for chess players. Where is the significant coverage "address[ing] the subject directly in detail"? Articles about a Who Wants to be a Millionaire controversy not Plaskett and WP:ROUTINE mentions in chess columns do not satisfy these criteria. ← Randomnonsense ^talk 17:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close. The nomination is just a waste of time. If winning the British chess championship, publishing two dozen books that are (collectively) held by a significant number of libraries, and being cited as an authority in his field isn't a strong prima facie case for notability it's time to scrap whatever approach to notability produces such a silly result. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. He is a well known person in chess world. --MrsHudson (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per everything Hullaballoo Wolfowitz said. ~dee^(talk?) 13:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a grandmaster, British champion, and author. But the article needs more coverage of his chess. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.