Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Nip

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. Fairly strong consensus that this is a BLP1E situation. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Nip[edit]

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

BLP1E violation; this was a declined prod. "Chess" is not listed on NSPORT, but "grandmaster" would be the inherently-notable title, not "master". Power~enwiki (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator is misinterpreting WP:BLP1E, which is meant for low-profile individuals caught up in a single news story. It does not apply to the career of a chess master, however brief it is. Notability is not temporary, and becoming the youngest ever US chess master is a notable achievement which was covered at the time in reliable sources like The New York Times.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable chess player. This is a good example of why the United States National Master title is held in low esteem in the wider chess world. The way he got the title looks highly suspicious, it looks like it was a setup for bragging rights by his coach and parents, and soon afterwards he appears to have lost interest in the game. Coverage in NYT was in their chess column, not in their main news pages. He is indeed notable only for a single event, and it's a dubious claim at that. MaxBrowne (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BLP1E does apply. It was a child who was in the spotlight for breaking a record and does not appear to have played since. We have no reason to believe he sought the spotlight (independently from his parents, coach, or whoever else) and thus -- again, as a child -- should be considered a low-profile individual. There's the record, but a big part of what's notable about it is the controversy. That raises WP:BLP issues, since it's not just one event, but it was a controversial event. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he is notable for something extraordinary. I agree that whether he is a dedicated chess player, and whether he really is that good, are in question, but it's not our job to answer those questions really. - Richard Cavell (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to Academic_Chess#Nicholas Nip. I agree with the BIO1E assessment; the subject became the youngest to achieve the distinction, but has not played since, so he is only notable for that one thing. Nip is strongly associated with Academic Chess and is discussed in the article. I think it would be a reasonable target. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @K.e.coffman: I don't know if a redirect makes sense in this case. The only source that ties Nip to that subject is one personal blog post (there's another source supporting his achievement, but it doesn't mention Academic Chess). Most of that section wasn't even about Nip (I've changed the heading to be about students). It seems like if we didn't have an article on Nip, extended content in the Academic Chess article based just on that personal blog post would be undue IMO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmmm, actually I can't say whether that first source about Nip mentions Academic Chess. I had searched for it, but didn't realize that the link seems to be broken (and not archived), so it may have mentioned the connection. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Delete then, per WP:BIO1E. The event (becoming the youngest master) is not significant enough to warrant an article in the absence of any other accomplishments. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per wp:BLP1E. While notability is not temporary, that appears to be one of the reasons why the BLP1E rules were put in place. To take care of folks who get a bit of coverage for a single thing, and then drop out of the public eye. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:00, 21 June 2017 (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.