Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Palmer (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Palmer[edit]

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

Bio of chess player of little note. No trace of player in any of the standard material on renowned professional or amateur chess players. From previous afd discussion and history of article, subject appears to have been a teacher at a school in England when page was created. Catchpole (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the subject "was the Jamaican National Champion in 1992". Although chess is not generally considered a sport, the subject would meet WP:ATHLETE since he has competed "major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level". Guoguo12 --Talk-- 22:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My opinion is that 1992 Jamaican National Champion does not equate to "major international amateur competition", therefore the article would not meet the guideline specified. Catchpole (talk) 07:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The lack of a FIDE rating indicates no serious international play and the Jamaican National Championship is probably not professional. But I think that the chess project usually considers a national champion as notable. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet any specific WP:BIO criteria (WP:CHESS does not have a topic-specific criteria) or WP:GNG. No news coverage on chess-related "Ryan Palmer" forthcoming, and only book-coverage is from Books, LLC -- apparently a Wikipedia mirror. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject meets the first criterion of WP:ANYBIO, since he has most certainly "received a well-known and significant award or honor"; he's been the national champion of Jamaican chess. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 22:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even assuming that chess is accepted as a sport (a stretch), and given that Plamer was the Jamaican champion (which I never challenged), he does not meet WP:ATHLETE#Generally acceptable standards, as this was not an international competition (a criteria presumbably put in place to avoid false-positives for the national competitions of very small nations). I would dispute that the chess championship of a small nation such as Jamaica is a " well-known and significant award or honor". Sub-international chess championships generally do not garner significant publicity or prestige outside the chess-playing community. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Since chess isn't a sport, WP:ATHLETE obviously doesn't apply, any more than it would for a "national" raspberry tart baking competition or a "national" origami contest; the common fallacy that WP:ATHLETE somehow applies to any and all types of competition isn't supported by the guideline itself. No evidence this passes the GNG. Ravenswing 16:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except Chess is a sport of course. The sport of kings. A mind sport as recognised by the international Olympic committee. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- It depends on your definition of sport. If it requires athletics, then chess is not a sport. In all other respects, chess is a sport. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete no sign of international competition to meet WP:ATHLETE. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I would regard a national champion (even if Jamaica is not the strongest chess playing nation on earth) as just enough to give notability. If he has played in any Olympiads then that would also be for me a reason to keep, but I haven't been able to find any evidence that he has.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: By the bye, has anyone examined the sources here? The FIDE rating card states that Palmer is unrated. The "Chess Drum" webpage has a single paragraph describing him as a "former Jamaican champion." The Shropshire Chess Association webpage lists him as playing on a couple local club champion teams. The article (from another webpage, www.voice-online.co.uk) supposedly backing his "national championship" up is a broken link, and a search on www.voice-online.co.uk for "Ryan Palmer" turns up no hits. A general Google News search for "Ryan Palmer" + "chess" turns up zero hits. Right now, we don't have any source - let alone a reliable one - asserting that Palmer is a former national champion. Would any of the Keep proponents care to present a reliable source or two backing up their contentions? Ravenswing 14:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The voice-online link works for me, it states: "The reaction has come as no surprise to Tobisch, who for several years taught chess in Jamaica, nor Staffordshire-based maths teacher Palmer, Jamaica’s 1992 national chess champion." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Now is voice-online a reliable source? Ravenswing 15:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind that. A quick Google search brings up the official site of the Jamaican Chess Federation which confirms he was joint champion in '92.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good on you; I'd found the Federation website in my meanderings but couldn't find a championship list on it. Ravenswing 19:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough, weak level in chess. SyG (talk) 10:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The 1992 Jamaican National Champion plays at a "weak level in chess"? Guoguo12 --Talk-- 22:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, yes, exactly. Unfortunately the country has not a strong chess tradition so that even its national champion is weak. That's a bit like saying "Groënland National Champion of Golf": not notable either... SyG (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I have generally held national championship, adequately sourced as in this case, as sufficient for notability, but I have been forced to revisit that stance after looking at this article. Jamaica is not considered a strong chess nation (although they gave Norway a serious run for their money in the first round of the 2010 Olympiad), and the list of champions shows that the top level seems to be around 2200-2300, below the International Master level. Still, I have arrived at the same conclusion as Pawnkingthree. While the sourcing is quite sparse, it is reliable, with independent coverage here for example. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What's your basis for presuming this website to meet the standard for a reliable source? Ravenswing 15:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a facsimile of a newspaper of which I have no reason to doubt its reliability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; I'd thought you were talking about another reliable source which might support a claim of notability, not another simple mention of the subject's 1992 championship. I'd think we could take the federation's word for that much. Ravenswing 16:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I agree with Sjakkalle. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. National championship is sufficient for a brief article. It isn't required that every article be a long, in-depth examination of the subject. Short pages are valuable to the encyclopedia too when they contain all the details of interest. This helps in building the web, as the article provides information that would not fit well at Jamaican Chess Championship. Quale (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Not says that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be". Catchpole (talk) 08:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, with the "national champion" reasoning, that means the "Groënland Golf National Champion" would deserve an article, even if he can barely hold a club ?! SyG (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would note that only one other person on the Jamaican Chess Championship list of champions has an article -- and he won it five times. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But then again, "because articles must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they are missing before they are created, a lot of articles do not exist that probably should" (WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST [essay]). Guoguo12 --Talk-- 20:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except that biographies of sports people are the kind of low hanging fruit that Wikipedia had exhausted about 4 years ago. If no-one has seen fit to create articles for numerous Grandmasters after all this time, I doubt that biographies of Jamaican chess champions, who play at a much lower standard, will ever be created. According to the only source we have, there hasn't even been a national champion of Jamaica since 2006! Also note the only other Jamaican champion we have an article for (Warren Elliott) was created by an single-use account named Wechess! (note initials). Catchpole (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Point taken. While I agree that Wikipedia cannot be about everything, I still think that the subject in question is notable enough to have its own article, seeing as the entire reason we have notability guidelines is to assure that Wikipedia is not about everything. (Did that make sense?) Having said this, I now point toward WP:GNG, which states that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", it can have its own article. The subject has been documented in "reliable sources" ([1]) and has also received what I consider "significant coverage" ([2]). Guoguo12 --Talk-- 02:59, 2 December 2010 (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.