Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold Saunders

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. Michig (talk) 07:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Saunders[edit]

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

Coming in twelfth place in the 1932 British Chess Championship ain't gonna cut it as far as notability goes. Non-notable. This piece is outta here. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 06:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His best tournament results establish notability. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Under what guidelines or policy does coming in twelfth place in 1932 establish notability? OGBranniff (talk) 05:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is going to fall for that straw man. Maybe we should delete the article on Magnus Carlsen, since he was last at Corus 2007? Toccata quarta (talk) 05:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus Carlsen is the subject of substantial coverage in reliable, third-party, editorially checked sources. Even in the last week there has been a slew of coverage of Carlsen because of the 2013 Candidates tournament in London. That is why he is notable. Now, if there were no coverage of Carlsen, and his crowning accomplishment was coming in last in 2007, then he'd be in the same deletable boat as the subject of this AFD. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 05:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you appreciate that "results" is a plural form a noun? Toccata quarta (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you appreciate that you have failed to cite neither any policy nor any guideline to support your claim that coming in 4th place at Scarborough "establish[es] notability." Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 06:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Shared first in a tournament with Savielly Tartakower is an accomplishment. Certainly not the most important chess biography, but that is not a reason to delete. The article may be improved in the future if we don't delete it, but it's satisfactory now. We can't build a good encyclopedia by deleting all the minor articles. Quale (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:13, March 16, 2013 (UTC)
Comment. Yes but under what policy or guideline is that accomplishment "notable" per Wikipedia? OGBranniff (talk) 08:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Applying policy and guidelines requires judgment. I think my judgment about Wikipedia notability is better than yours. I have a few years more experience here than you do, which I think helps. But everyone has the opportunity to be heard, and other participants to this discussion and the closer can weigh our respective arguments and decide for themselves. Quale (talk) 08:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Well, that is true, I agree. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with OGBranniff. It's one thing to claim that someone is notable or accomplished, but where is the significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources? If it's out there somewhere, let's see it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based a little on judgement of the results, because finishing in shared first with Tartakower (one of the top players of this age) in Scarborough, clearly establishes Saunders as a player who could reckon with the World elite at the time. In fact, Saunders seemingly defeated Tartakower in the game between them [1]. The problem with players whose accomplishments were in the 1920s and 1930s is that their merits are not always freely available on the internet, but there is cause to believe that the coverage is there. For example, British Chess Magazine has a 1950 obituary on Saunders in volume 70, unfortunately I can only see snippets of it using Google Books, but those snippets do confirm that he was one of the strongest players in London. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Saunders has an entry on page 373 of Gaige's book Chess Personalia. To me, this confers automatic notability as the author clearly states in the Introduction to his scholarly work that the following chess personalities represent " ... the great and the near-great in the world of chess.". Saunders' entry gives, in turn, a list of reliable sources that Gaige has used to establish the facts, for example, BCM (British Chess Magazine) 1950. p.285. - presumably the tribute or obituary referred to by User:Sjakkalle. Brittle heaven (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2013 (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.