Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Lalić

Add links
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 no consensus. With socking allegations being thrown around, it is impossible for me to determine a clear consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lalić

[edit]
Peter Lalić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

2131 is not in anyway an exceptional chess rating in the scheme of things. Another 169 points are required just to be an FM. Writing articles for CHESS magazine does not a notable person make (I have had an article published in a well known publication, believe me when I say that you haven't heard of me!), and neither does being the son of a Grandmaster. Personally, I am within a few Elo points of this person, and I am strong enough to understand how little I know about the game. Given that this person's entry on wikipedia relates to them being a chess player, they should at least be of FM standard to be afforded an entry. Mendoza2909 (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hesitant Delete; there don't seem to be enough sources to establish notability at this point. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 13:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • At most Weak keep -- It looks as if he is on his way to bigger things. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Personally, I am also within a few Elo points of this person, and I agree that his Elo rating alone does not make him notable. However, I think being the youngest ever regular contributor to the CHESS magazine and the youngest ECF certified coach makes him notable. M701 (talk) 04:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -- Peter is certainly notable, firstly because his FIDE ELO rating is >2000, which makes him an "expert" class chess player at the International level and he has also received the United Kingdom/British Chess distinction of "National Master." He has a massively popular YouTube Channel with more than 600 chess video analysis uploads, and his channel has been ranked as one of the top 10 chess YouTube channels in the World by a major chess news and analysis blog. That's not just notable, but an absolutely remarkable achievement since only a handful of people have maintained a prominent YouTube Chess Channel successfully. Peter is also the son of two Grandmasters...certainly a very notable distinction considering I've heard of no other expert class or better chess player having BOTH their parents as Grandmasters...Peter's father, Bogdon Lalic has written chess books, and his mother, Susan Lalic, was the top British Woman Grandmaster for the majority of the 80s and 90s. Because Peter has followed in their footsteps, his relationship to them is obviously significant. And certainly his age alone qualifies him as a prodigy since he achieved expert level at the age of 16 or 17. I actually question why Peter's article is up for deletion in the first place. The first comment from Mendoza2909 sounds very berating and does not acknowledge any of Peter's very notable characteristics, which makes his position clear: it's not a very open-minded critique of Peter's notability in the chess world, and a total disregard for all the citations and public references supporting all these points of notability. It seems to me someone doesn't like Peter and is using this speedy deletion nomination process as a troll-like reprisal. There are more than enough publicly-verifiable sources to establish this emerging prodigy's notability, and this article is very informative. Keep this article by all means. Piewalker Piewalker 19:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Without regard to this particular article--I do not understand the ranking system well enough to trust my judgment about it-- we have normally been very reluctant to accept notability on the basis of being a prodigy-- at having attained a respectable level but not one which would have qualified an adult for an article. I could probably make a good case for doing otherwise, and accepting such notability, and similarly with youth awards and youth competitions of all sorts, and in fact I tried doing so when I came here 6 years ago. I didn't get anywhere then, and I doubt I would get anywhere now. It would be a significant change in our interpretation of notability in many areas, and I am pretty sure there would not be consensus at this time to broaden it to that extent. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply

Several points - 1. 19 years old is way too old to be an emerging prodigy. Actually it's not a prodigy at all. I am in my early 20s. Maybe I am not emerging any more, but do I still get to be a prodigy, given my rating of over 2100?

2. Apparently my first sentence sounds very berating. I would reply that my rating is within 10 Elo points of Peter so actually, I am completely honest as I know exactly of what I speak. Our ratings are close enough that if we played 100 games, our current ratings indicate that Peter would win about 51-52 and I would win 48-49. (Feel free to correct me anyone, but I'm not far off). In reality, there is enough margin of error in the elo rating system that it is impossible to detect a real difference in our standard. As I said, I know enough about the game and my own place within it to know that I am not an expert. At a stretch I would call myself a very good club player. By extension, I would call Peter a very good club player, no more.

3. National Master is a title created by the British Chess Federation. It is not internationally recognised. Once you have reached a certain standard, you pay a fee and you get awarded the title. Many players don't bother and save a few pounds. In my view it is there to create a bit of extra cash. All due respect to Peter for having earned this title, but he has such a long way to go before reaching an internationally accredited title. I'm sure it's a very impressive thing to say at parties to non-chess players, but chess players should be under no illusion that it is anything other than recognition of a strong club player. If he ever reaches FM I'm sure you'll find that National Master title disappears from his CV very quickly.

4. You say that Peter Lalic is an "expert" class chess player at the International level'. I would bet a lot of money that Peter will never play in a senior international competition for Britain on merit. Glorney and Faber doesn't count in my book unfortunately.

5. Is being 153rd ranked chess player in Britain a notable achievement? Really?

6. Chessgames.com... hmm... Play in an international open tournament and your games will likely end up on a database. Especially if you played a GM in the first or second round (because your seeding is that low) and lose.

7. The guy obviously loves chess, wants to improve and submitting articles to a chess magazine is a part of that. But it's something anyone of certain standard can do. Write enough articles and eventually they'll get published. Doesn't mean I'm a good player. Or that anyone over 2200 won't just skip over the stuff he writes. Yes, I've read some of it.

8. This person William Stewart. He ranks Peter's channel as one of the top 10 chess channels on youtube. Apparently he is famous. I have never heard of him. Believe me when I say most people haven't heard of him. He doesn't have a Wikipedia page (a general indicator of notability) despite being ranked 150 points higher than Peter. He is however a chess coach, like Peter. Maybe they have heard of each other. Maybe they have even met each other. Who knows? Anyway, I will repeat he is not famous, nor a chess player that the general chess public will listen to, therefore his opinion should not be counted. This should be higher up the list, but I am on a roll.

9. I have never met Peter Lalic. I have no reason to dislike Peter Lalic. I dislike this Wikipedia page as it attempts to portray a strong club player as something he is not.

10. It is obviously significant that he is the son of two notable chess players, but this significance should surely come after the fact of establishing his own notability. I therefore disregard everything you say on the matter of his parents, although I will say...

11. Susan Lalic is not a Grandmaster. She is a Woman Grandmaster. The standard for achieving the title of WGM is lower. As a WGM, IM and 5 time British Champion (respect!) she is certainly deserving of an entry on Wikipedia. I am a man for the details!

Apologies for the formatting if it isn't good. By the way, I think myself a good player, but I know exactly where I stand among the greats, and that is precisely nowhere. I know enough to appreciate their greatness and to strive for it myself, even if it's only for one game.

Mendoza2909 ( talk ) 16:03, 8 April 2013 (GMT)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ECF Accredited Coaches ECF Accredited Coaches have fulfilled the following requirements:

1) They hold an Enhanced CRB Clearance, which is less than three years old.

2) They have supplied two professional character references to the satisfaction of the ECF.

3) They have supplied the Manager of Coaching with details of previous coaching or teaching experience.

4) They are a current ECF member.


Actually this is ridiculous. He is touted as the youngest ever coach in the ECF. All he had to do was have previously taught in schools and pass a criminal background check. So much about this article screams mediocrity (compared to anyone, you know, notable). 2131 ranking, 17th in British championships, National Master, Board 3 of the U-18 team. He played in the British championships, therefore his games will get onto chessgames.com. (The highest rated player he beat in that competition was 2271. Nothing special. I've beaten a 2400. I'm sure he has too.) Altogether it adds up to an above average chess player (and not more). By the way, the Glorney Cup only involves Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England, so again his board prize sounds impressive until you realise that he was competing for it against 3 other people.

I realise it does sound like I have some sort of vendetta here. I don't, have never met the guy. As regards playing strength, the internet does have a habit of providing anonymity, but if you choose to believe me, my Elo of >2100 means I know what I am talking about. I think this page is an abomination and that is why I am still here, writing this message. Every playing achievement listed here has been painted in a far rosier light than is actually the case. So has the coaching achievement. He's not a chip off the old block, as it is unlikely he will ever reach the playing strength of either of his parents. That's the way chess goes, it is a young (wo)man's game.

If you think that contributing regularly to a magazine makes him notable then so be it (How regularly is regularly?). If that is the case, then can I suggest a substantial rewrite of everything else here, as he should be listed primarily as a chess contributor. Or perhaps as a chess coach. Certainly not as a chess player though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mendoza2909 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There's no inherent notability, like for pro athletes in football, for being a chess player at this level. way below the top, and certainly notability cannot be inherited from mom and dad. There is no inherent notability for being a contributor to a specialized magazine. Most of the refs are very specialized and only have score listings or brief mention. Has a source such as the BBC or the Times had significant coverage? Does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO at this time, though if he advances in the field he might in the future. Edison (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The notion he's a notable chess prodigy is downright silly; here is a list of the strongest players born in 1994, and Peter Lalić is nowhere to be seen. (He's #313 in the world among players born that year, and perhaps the top eight or so might reasonably be called chess prodigies. Of the top ten, only five have articles at the moment - the top five, as it happens.) In short, he isn't notable as a prodigy or as a chess player... and for him to be notable for his magazine or YouTube contributions, he'd have to meet WP:AUTHOR, which he does not. Sideways713 (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Piewalker (talk), who strongly advocated keeping this article, is using his YouTube channel to advertise Peter Lalić and his coaching services and would thus seem to have a conflict of interest here. Sideways713 (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems notable for age/family. Plus given immediately prior sockpuppet case and chess AfDs continuing April 1 with User:Lampenstein see no reason to encourage easy deletions here. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I personally think it's too early to recognize Peter Lalic as notable. I seriously doubt, if it weren't for his name and famous parents, that the world outside of the UK would know much or anything about him. It could only be through his regular monthly CHESS column, which is decent enough, but has only a kind of 'bits and pieces' type content that most strong club chess players could put together with a bit of application. Hence, if he is to justify an article, then I would say he needs to have his books/writings highly acclaimed in some sense, and/or gain the IM title (not just the FM title), or train a very successful player, if coaching is a route he pursues. Right now, I'm not sure he knows himself which activity he wishes to specialize in and we will only find out with the passage of time. As a long-time editor here, I am only applying the criteria that we have always used as a rule of thumb, and that is, (1) minimum GM title or (2) IM title with notable skills in some other chess-related activity. Clearly, there will be some exceptions (where someone has no chess title but is a leading figure in their field, e.g. the current FIDE President); however, right now I would put him in a category that is aspiring to meet the second criteria above, and he is not there yet. Brittle heaven (talk) 10:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable present. For those that think "expert" is a high chess title, other than World Champions, there are players with the Grandmaster title, then International Master title, then FIDE Master and Candidate Master. "Expert" is generally the same as "candidate master", a lower title. The chess project generally considers grandmasters to be notable. An International Master or below is not considered notable as a player, but they might be notable in some other way. I don't think that applies here - not enough to assert notability at this time. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability criteria: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" Lalic simply does not meet these criteria. No significant chess accomplishments and a rating insufficient to overturn the basic criteria. Sasata (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hello. I appear to have registered this account and nominated this article for deletion at precisely the wrong time as it obviously looks suspicious. How would you like me to prove that I am not who you think I am? Mendoza2909 (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This nomination is getting a bit sinister! A closer inspection of the nominator has recently revealed some suspicious activity. Not only is he a known sock-puppeteer, but some of his reasons for deletion resemble a smear campaign! I don't know what this user has against Lalic, who just seems to be an honest chess person working up the ladder. It is obvious that the article doesn't claim him to be a prodigy; what makes him notable is the breadth of his contribution to the game: playing, coaching, writing, lecturing, etc. Many International and Grand masters cannot boast such an impact on English chess, especially at such a young age. Why delete the page when in a couple of years he will be titled anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.2.25 (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those are very weak "Keep" arguments. And I supposed the opposite of a "smear campaign" is a promotional one. p.s. I don't care if the Devil himself or herself was the nominator, this article merits removal. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in strongest possible terms. Hello. This article is obviously nothing more than a "puff piece" manufactured by pro-Slavic partisans in the British chess world. The subject's chess rating hardly rates him mention in his local Church Easter newsletter, much less on Wikipedia. And yes, his mother may be a "Woman's Grandmaster," whatever that is, but that hardly makes him notable on his own. Furthermore, his "contributions" to some chess publications merit no more notice than the "Letters from Readers" submissions in Boys Life magazine circa 1972. Those "arguing" keep here are regurgitating nothing more than pabulum. Thank you. Runsledale (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey OGB! (This isn't obvious? By intent or incompetence, that is what I long to know ...) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! How are you, Ihardly? More of the latter, however, I have no idea who this "Mendoza" fellow is, or why he is trying so hard to imitate Wiki_brah. In any case, have a good day. Thank you. Runsledale Bang some sluts! 01:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sasata. "Bang some sluts!"—he had to let us know. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:02, 17 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Lalić&oldid=1080468956"