Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Lalić (3rd 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lalić

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

Re-nominating as Sasata's nomination had technical problems.

Sasata's rationale was: Subject does not meet the notability criteria, as he has not been "the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The rationale for the non-delete closure of the previous AfD was the socking issue; hopefully that won't be a problem here.

I agree, and would add that Lalić is a long, long way from being notable as a player, even considering his age (a quick look here indicates he's #1079 in the world among players born in 1994 or later.) His contributions to magazines and websites don't help his case much, as he clearly fails WP:AUTHOR. There are 13 sources in the article (counting one dead link), but the few that meet WP:RS and are independent of him only contain trivial or routine coverage.

Finally, notability is not inherited from one's parents. Sideways713 (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sasata and nominator. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable enough at this time. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete comes well short of meeting any notability standards in his fields. --SubSeven (talk) 16:42, 19 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) 16:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur w/ others. The article comes off as promotional. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per other arguments here and on previous attempt to delete. Mendoza2909 (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note should be taken of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Lalić (2nd nomination). I started off closing that as moot because it seemed to point to a nonexistent article, only to find out that the name of the article in the nomination was misformed. I reopened it, but this one had begun already. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A rating of 2131 is a strong player, but well below the level where one would be considered even semi-professional. I agree mostly with Brittle heaven's rules of thumb, although I would probably be a bit more liberal with acceptiong exceptions. (I think international youth champions and national champions are notable, even if the country is small and the player is in the 2100 rating range, even though they are arfuably less notable than FIDE presidents.) But in this case I see no really persuasive reason to make an exception. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We also have Bogdan Lalić, whose notability seems reasonably secure; also Susan Lalic, whose notability seems substantially less so. Dad's article seems a plausible merge and redirect candidate for both of them. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 07:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Bogdan Lalić is a chess grandmaster; Peter Lalić is currently significantly below grandmaster level at chess. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 16:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I understand that. Bogdan Lalić is clearly notable. He has a chess-playing ex-wife (Susan Lalic) who is likely notable herself, and the mother of his son, the chess player in this article. What I would suggest is that Son's article be smerged and redirected into a section on clearly notable Dad's family; he has made something of a chess dynasty; and it isn't impossible that Son will not go on to become independently notable. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not yet notable for chess and no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 16:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN, GNG. As we said back in the day, this smacks of vanispamcuftisement. Miami Airline Pilot75 (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Stricken as Miami Airline Pilot75 has stated that he is a sock of the indefblocked Bunkerdiver (in itself a sock). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certain keep I think that it's a shame whenever pages are deleted from Wikipedia. This encyclopedia should be as comprehensive as possible, and we should be thankful for any extra information (especially written as clearly, objectively, and with so many references as this article). Deleting factual information is just a waste of people's time. It is true that this person is not a notable worldwide player. However, within England, he evidently makes big contributions to the game: writing, coaching, representing his country, etc. It is obvious that he is going places, and has already made a name for himself in his country, so we should keep the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.44.109 (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Upon a closer inspection the sources on this article are very dubious. While I think Wikipedia should be comprehensive and diverse, if someone is not notable, no matter how well written you think that article may be, it does not belong on an Encyclopedia, and could be placed in a Chess wiki that has different inclusion criteria. This could have maybe been a snow delete. Mkdw ^talk 07:24, 26 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.