Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Harris

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. There are some references, some of which have some quality, and I think they get over the line. The weight of the arguments is roughly equal. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Harris

Low notability outside of Australian chess...? Tim (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "junior champion" does not seem like a notable achievement and the fact that I was unable to find any non trivial mentions in RS supports this conclusion. -Icewedge (*bleet*) 18:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expand, wikify, and get more references. We delete way too many articles based on the quality of the article itself rather than its subject. We should not be deleting articles (aside from copyright violations) about notable subjects just because the article itself is written poorly. Running an advanced search at Excite.com, where the exact phrase box contains "Rebecca Harris" and the all of these words box contains "chess." There's a lot of sources with information about the chess champion. As with anything, not all of the sources would meet WP:RS, but there are many that would. A chess champion usually wouldn't have to have much notability outside of chess to be worthy of an article, just as an NFL player wouldn't need much notability outside of football, an actress wouldn't need much notability outside of the movies or the theater, and a murderer wouldn't need much notability outside of the world of crime. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 18:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your explanation that we should not base our judgment on the quality of the article is a valuable one, but it seems to me that the nominator launched this AfD on the basis of the notability, and not the quality. SyG (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as I am uncertain about the notability of these professedly junior championships, and hope that chess people chime in. --Dhartung | Talk 19:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person is not notable, be it in general terms or even within the world of chess. Actually, her level at chess is even lower than most members of the WP:Wikiproject Chess. SyG (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep among false positives is RS coverage covering her chess achievments, also this one almost exclusively about her. She has RS coverage, the question is what makes someone a notable chess player. Are these professional? Is this a lower body that she'll "grow out" of? I.e. in baseball from Little League to the Major Leagues? I don't know, I don't know chess. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 22:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep has been getting attention in WP:RS; I remember reading about her recently in my small local paper. JJL (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keen and expand I believe there is more that can be added to this article, although I would like to see that happen quite soon. If nothing is done in a few months then I'll support deletion, but for now I think something can be done. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The playing strength here of 1800 is not even master level, rather it is a typical ranking for a fairly strong amateur, but nowhere near a professional. Neither the WFM title or a U16 junior championship of a country without strong chess traditions carries all that much prestige. It's a good achievement to be sure (and miles above the level I'm playing at), but it isn't really a claim for encyclopedic notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Olympic athelete. Any young football player would be kept. Chess should be no exception. Lab-oratory (talk) 07:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The Chess Olympiad has no connection to the Olympic Games, and she has not played in the main event, just the U16 version. We don't actually keep any young football player, we have a minimum requirement that they must have made a first-team appearance in a professional league. Similar for chess we must have some threshold of notabiltiy. I think there's general agreement at WikiProject Chess that national champions are notable, but not national junior champions.Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep, expand, wikify, and get more references.'"junior champion" is a notable achievement given the fact that Rebecca not only holds a WFM title but she also currently holds an international ranking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IMrsshocker7167 (talk • contribs)
- - I know they arent connected. I just think chess olympiad is similiar to olympic games when comparing sports. Lab-oratory (talk) 08:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine Lip may be relevant here. Lip is also a former Australian girl's champion, also a Women's Fide Master and has a rating about 200 points higher than Rebecca Harris, and yet her article was deleted.Pawnkingthree (talk) 09:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm wondering to what extent 5 years of total inactivity with regard FIDE rated games affected Lip; there's certainly no question that Harris is playing and thus likely to get further coverage in the future. I think there's a case for giving this article a bit more time, and certainly thanks to Pawnkingthree it's already in a much better shape than it was 24 hours ago.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards a Keep, purely because in this particular case there does seem to be coverage out there: Chessbase is a respected news site. Not sure about the Penrith Press, is it just a local paper? Certainly her chess achievements aren't exceptional yet, but the attention she's got so far suggests she may just be notable.Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:03, 26 June 2008 (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.