Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine Lip

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 --JForget 23:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Catherine Lip

Catherine Lip (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Fails notability. The only claim to notability (in fact the only thing of substance the article says) is that she won the Australian Girls Chess Championship twice, but no other winners of this tournament have WP pages. Footnote to WP:BIO says, "Participation in and in most cases winning individual tournaments, except the most prestigious events, does not make non-Athletic competitors notable. This includes, but is not limited to, Poker, Bridge, Chess, Magic:The Gathering, Starcraft, etc". Lip clearly falls into this category, i.e. she has won a comparatively minor chess tournament. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

  • The above fails to point out that selective quote is NOT a requirement of WP:BIO. It's from the additional criteria section and therefore "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." When you instead read the WP:BIO Basic criteria the article does I believe meet the requirements. ChessCreator (talk) 04:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Which ones? If you mean the WFM title, see my answer below. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
No, Just the Basic criteria section at the top. As there is multi secondary source material. ChessCreator (talk) 02:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - As a chess enthusiast, I'd love it if national champions got notable coverage in the press in Australia, but they don't. Let alone national junior champions. So in a minor chess country like Australia, I believe anything but the national senior championship fails to qualify as one of "the most prestigious events" required by WP:BIO. And without any press coverage, what is there to write? At least for a senior champion, there's usually a significant career to write about. (See e.g. Darryl Johansen, a multiple Australian senior chess champion). But a junior championship is just a once-off event, and many juniors (in any sport) stop playing, or fail to excel at the senior level. So there's nothing to write except "X won the national junior championship of Y in year Z" - as in the case here. We've already got Australian Chess Championship#Australian Girl's Champions, so why does Catherine Lip need her own article? I still say Delete. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as per comments by Peter Ballard--Matilda talk 03:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - I note with concern a significant number of red links in the article ( Australian Chess Championship ). I suggest that there not be red links - happy for wikilinks for articles that exist but I suggest this AfD covers removing redlinks as well - notability for others would be on a case by case basis - for example, Robert Bartnik whose stub article fails to mention he was a junior chess champion - might of course not be the same person; or Zhao Zong-Yuan who has gone on to greater Ches triumphs.--Matilda talk 03:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Completely non-notable. Ballard's comment above is right on. Renee (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Every year there is a winner for girls and boys, and that puts us at hundreds, and then we have subclassifications. Winning is very nice. Becoming a grand master is about where the line is for encyclopedic level. Utgard Loki (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: She does hold the Woman FIDE Master title; however her Elo rating of 2052 is not exceptional. She isn't in the top 100 players in Australia and she certainly isn't anywhere near the top 100 female players in the world.Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - I wasn't aware that she held the WFM title. That adds some notability, but we still need more for a WP entry, in my opinion - though now at least I'm open to being convinced otherwise. It's still the case of that the article really has nothing but her birth year, years she won the Junior championship, and her title. Perhaps there is a case for creating a page called something like Titled Australian Chess Players, where they can be listed with links to their FIDE rating cards. The list wouldn't be exceptionally long (100 or so, only 3 (hopefully soon 4) of which are Grandmasters). Peter Ballard (talk) 11:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It appears she earned that title by her 4th place in a Zonal tournament. That's the first part of the World Championship cycle but of course it's a long way from the championship itself. From her FIDE card it looks like she hasn't played any rated games since 2003, which would imply she's given up chess. Not much opporuntity for expansion if that's the case.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Winning the Girl's Championship is a good achievement, but it is not a strong indicator of notability since the tournament is no stronger than the weekend opens which are played throughout the world. Winning the general national chess championship makes you "the strongest player in the country" and is a reasonable claim to notability, but "the strongest female under a certain age in the country" has too many restrictions on participation (gender and age and nationality) to include the strongest and notable players. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep Chess champion; verifiable information. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, nothing like enough verifiable info to convince me she is notable enough. Paste (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Peter Ballard, as not notable enough. I would also agree with the redirect suggested by Brewcrewer. SyG (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Peter Ballard. Charles Weldon has been proposed for deletion as non-notable, and I'm inclined to agree with that. Lip is rated almost 300 Elo rating points below Weldon. Non-notable. Krakatoa (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Sjakkalle makes a good point above. Lip, two-time winner of the Australian Girls Championship, is a low expert. Many weekend tournaments have strong enough fields that one generally has to be a master (2200-2399, a rung above expert (2000-2099)), or even a senior master (2400 and above), to win. I'm looking here at an old issue of the Illinois Chess Bulletin that says on the cover "Master XXX YYY 1981 [Greater Chicago Open] Champion." The master in question (rated slightly over 2200) was rated almost 200 points above Lip, as was his unmentioned co-champion, also a low master. There were five other masters, and 27 experts, in the 1981 Greater Chicago Open. I would not take seriously a claim that master XXX YYY would be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia for being "two-time winner of the Greater Chicago Open." A fortiori, being a two-time winner of the much weaker Australian Girls Championship is non-notable. Krakatoa (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm a little wary of that argument, because gender (and to a lesser degree nationality) affect notability. An Australian woman rated 2200-2300 could probably have won every Australian women's championship until recently (which would be a notable achivement), and a number of women's world champions were not GM strength. So let's focus on Catherine Lip's claims to notability (which I still think she fails) rather than comparing her to males or other countries. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. In my opinion, winners of school competitions are not worthy of inclusion unless they continue to go on to bigger and more notable competitions, and this article states that "She has not played any FIDE rated games since October 2003" (five years is a pretty long time). Loopla (talk) 05:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Not played any FIDE rated games in five years, doesn't mean she isn't playing. ChessCreator (talk) 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It is notable as she is a Woman FIDE Master, Australian Girl's Champion 1999 and Australian Girl's Champion 2000. The Woman FIDE Master is verifiable from a reliable source, FIDE, the Girl's champion are also verified. Someone has taken the time to create this article this year and despite much of it's contents being removed I see no reason to delete it.
As a side, I question why non-Athletic competitors are treated differently to athletic competitors in WP:BIO ChessCreator (talk) 04:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
"Woman FIDE Master" is a joke title, roughly translating to "expert," apparently. Being a male FIDE Master (roughly corresponding to 2300+ Elo rating) is non-notable; there's no reason that being a Woman FIDE Master with an Elo a little over 2000, like Ms. Lip, is notable. Krakatoa (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I find that only a "Woman FIDE Master" argument quite weak. You can't compare males to females. Females occur a lot less in chess, and correspondingly the top female players are awarded titles, even when titles are easier to get in terms of ELO playing strange, it's much harder to get because of the significantly lower numerical numbers.
For example, in the USA there are 60 Male Grandmasters, the Top60 titles males are all GM's. Now, let's compare that to the Top US female titles. 1 GM(Zsuzsa Polgar), 10 WGM's, 22 WIM's and 18 WFM. 1+10+22+18=51. Still nine females short and we have run out of titles of female players. So 60 male GMs but not 60 Women's titles. Conclusion: A Woman FIDE Master title is quite significant indeed. ChessCreator (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Pardon, are you suggesting that WFM is more significant than GM? Your argument falls down because women's sports do not get the same coverage as men's sports: just because (taking a guess) 1000 active US pro baseball players have articles, it doesn't follow that the top 1000 active female softball players get articles. I'm happy to concede that WFM is nearly as significant as FM, but ranking it alongside GM makes no sense. Currently being a FM (on its own) is not notable enough to get a WP article - in fact I believe not all GMs have articles, though maybe they should. Certainly not all IMs (let alone FMs) have articles, and this is probably right, because they haven't achieved enough to get notability. So a WFM title is nowhere near enough. Especially since, as I've been saying all along, there's almost nothing else to say about her. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
No, not more significant then GM. Just that Women's titles are hard to come by and any idea that you can compare women to men based on ELO is in my view misguided.
""almost nothing else to say about her" - Peter Ballard. That I don't understand. Did you look? More info on her after searching G. There are 67 of her games at masterchessgames.com and 7 at chessgames.com, so a game could be shown perhaps. She is among Top20 females in Australia according to FIDE. She most likely holds various records as youngest Australian WFM etc as she was only 15 at the time(but that requires checking). She played in the World Youth Under-16 Chess Olympiad, 2002, played for Australia. She took part in the World Juniors Chess Championships, Greece 2001, a strong female tournament won by now WGM Koneru Humpy. Info is out there, you just have to look for it.
This article was only created this year, it's not surprising that it doesn't contain much information. Submitting it for deletion (this is the second time already!) isn't going to encourage editors to add to this or other articles just to have there efforts deleted. ChessCreator (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
There is also info in this about women vs men in sports etc that is not in the current version of the wiki article, yet it was in the past. ChessCreator (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
There are only 24 players at Category:Australian chess players. Four of these (Benson, Caoili, Farleigh, Sarfati) are notable for non-chess reasons, and each of the other 19 is more or less a legend of Australian chess. Lip's achievements are miles below those other 19. You could probably add another 100 Australian chess players - some male, some female - who are far more notable than Lip.
The things you mention - top 20 women in Australia, playing in the Olympiad, playing in the world junior, having games at chessgames.com - still don't cut it with the regulations at WP:BIO, in my opinion (and are way below the achievements of the other 19). Especially since the disclaimer at WP:BIO specifically mentions chess as a non-athletic sport in which only the top level deserves mention. (And I am not denigrating women's chess here, I say this if I consider her achievements in the field of women's chess). If you want WP to have every titled player, or every Chess Olympiad participant etc., then fine, so be it. But to do that, the WP:BIO guidelines will need to change. So I think the place to start is lobby for less stringent guidelines for chess at WP:BIO. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Peter, you seem to be misinterpreting everything that I have written. Please read my above edit again. You said "almost nothing else to say about her", I provided multi additional information you seemed unaware of to show there is more to say about her. I didn't imply just because Ms Lip appears in a chess Olympiad, that every Chess Olympiadian should have an article. That's not what I said.
The WP:BIO guidelines are good enough. All that is require is to read it carefully. I believe you have not read the entire article, it's a broader document then the narrow 'Note 8' section you quote when opening this AfD.
If you had read the WP:BIO guidelines in full you would have realised the following before raising an AfD.
WP:BIO gives:
  1. If an article does not explain the notability of its subject,[9] try to improve it by: Asking the article's editor(s) for advice. This didn't happen link
  2. If an article fails to cite sufficient sources: Ask the article's editor(s) for advice on where to look for sources. This didn't happen link
  3. Put the {{notability|biographies}} tag on the article to notify other editors. This didn't happen link
I believe, the failings above are enough to withdraw the AfD irrespective of the debate about the articles notability. It makes little sense to have raised this AfD, I ask you to withdraw it and save editors time. ChessCreator (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't follow the full process. But since the article's creator was notified a week ago, I see no reason to withdraw the nomination for procedural reasons. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2008 (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.