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. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Olsen-Mills[edit]

(1) Not sufficiently notable, and (2) possible WP:AUTO. She is a relatively low-rated player at this point. Also, most editors who have worked on the page don't edit much on other articles. Bubba73 (talk), 04:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - generally we draw the line at GMs, national champions, or truly outstanding juniors (like World Junior champions). Being the #81 U-21 girl in the USA[1] is a nice achievement and I wish her well. But it doesn't meet WP notability criteria, it doesn't even come close. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: "GM' = grandmaster (chess) abd "U-21" is "under 21 years old". Bubba73 (talk), 04:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Puzzled by the comment about, "most editors who have worked on the page don't edit much on other articles." Seems a poor argument for deletion. Everyone starts somewhere. Most of us start with what we know. Someone's contribs are less valued for being focused? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 05:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that as possible evidence of WP:AUTO or WP:COI. Bubba73 (talk), 05:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* 65.103.228.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

*RoastedChessNuts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Bubba73 (talk), 05:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete What Peter Ballard said. A 17-year-old rated 1721 is very non-notable. I was rated close to 2000 at 17, and would not claim that was close to notability. We have not even treated International Masters (around 2400-2500 Elo rating) as necessarily being notable (unless they're also prominent writers like John L. Watson or Jeremy Silman), and she's very, very far from that level (or its junior equivalent). Krakatoa (talk) 06:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:ATHLETE suggests that she should have played in a top tournament, but her ranking is so low that it appears she wouldn't qualify for the higher level tournaments - ELO_rating_system#FIDE_tournament_categories. Unless there is evidence of her playing at a high level tournament or against a high level player then she is not notable enough for a standalone article. SilkTork *^YES! 11:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Top 100 on a gender and age-restricted list is not really a claim to notability. Regarding the rating of 1721... well I am a 1290 player and consider players with 1721 to be out of my class, but for an encyclopedia entry one really ought to be at national champion or grandmaster- (perhaps IM-) level, and 1721 is about 600-800 points below that. Second place in the first tournament says very little unless it's described what type of tournament that is. (Most tournament players will sooner or later finish second or better in a tournament, because the strength of tournaments varies greatly.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the good rationales are already taken, 'cause I went to bed instead of coming back to this. Setting aside the coi or auto issues, because a notable subject could have an article with those issues, subject is not sufficiently notable. I'm not aware of a notability guideline for Chess, but if we apply WP:ATHLETE, then subject does not meet that. From what I see, being in the FIDE Top 100 Junior's is not sufficient standing. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if you are in the unrestricted FIDE top 100, then you are almost certainly notable. Players on that list are grandmaster level, and players of that strength tend to get their efforts published about in their home country's chess publications at least, if not the general media. On this article, we are talking about the US Womens' Under age 21 list, and the restrictions on nationality, gender, and age have excluded almost all the notable players. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sjakklle. I clarified my position. And understand now better what we are discussing. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 18:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amend rationale per Suncreator below-- Does not meet WP:BIO. Is not a top achiever/competitor in chess, and like an athlete not achieving as a highest level competitor, is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. We really need a guideline for non athletic competition of this nature. Dlohcierekim 23:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the good reasons above, and also a good friend of mine (girl, if that matters) had reached the 1700-rating at the age of 13, much in advance of this Jamie Olsen-Mills. (sorry, I was not able to find another good reason). SyG (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject required by WP:NOTE. Much of the above arguements are false by the way(WP:ATHLETE does not apply here) but none the less thankfully reach the correct conclusion anyway on this article. SunCreator (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with others. Criteria for notability is clear and this one is not close. Brittle heaven (talk) 00:49, 6 September 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.