Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Hung


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Hung

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was tagged as a PROD, but I don't believe deletion would be uncontroversial, since there was a clear claim of notability. Either someone is notable or they're not. The reason "Not enough notability" provided in the PROD is misguided. The article claims the player was the higest-rated player in their country. That's something worth a wider discussion. Mgm|(talk) 11:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  --  J mundo 14:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I was the one who tagged the article with the PROD template. I do not think having been Taiwan's highest rated player is enough to be worth an article in WikiPedia, because Taiwan is a very weak country when it comes to chess. The subject has a low Elo-rating, has not won any notable chess tournament, and has not even achieved one of the FIDE titles (like Grandmaster, International Master or FIDE Master), although tens of thousands of chess players have. He is currently rated as 39350th in the world, so if he is notable we should create about 39349 articles for the other players ;-) SyG (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment With a rating of 2104 I doubt he is Taiwan's highest rated player. Perhaps highest rated junior or something.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, he may have been first in Taiwan on the July 2008 list. FIDE shows him as the second-highest rated player in Tiawan, first under 18 in Taiwan.  Bubba73 (talk), 20:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per SyG. Loosmark (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment In other activities we have a practice of considering national champions as notable, regardless of the strength of the sport in that area, DGG (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't been able to find that he is the champion of Taiwan. In fact, as far as I can tell, Taiwan doesn't have a chess championship. Bubba73 (talk), 02:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional information When he was the highest-rated FIDE player in Taiwan, his rating was based on only 12 games, which isn't enough for an accurate rating. Now his rating is based on 25 games and has dropped somewhat.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Bubba73's analysis of the rating seems right, and I cannot find evidence of him being champion of Taiwan or elsewhere. A rating in the 2100s is a strong player (I was mightily pleased when I got a draw in a time scramble against a player of that level a month ago, even though I missed that I had a mate in three), but it is not an outstanding level which gives you a title, or independent recognition as a chess player. In general, I think Grandmasters and national champions have usually gained the notability as a chess player to deserve an article, while International Masters are somewhat borderline, and Mr. Hung is some 200-300 rating points below that level. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete for reasons above. Bubba73 (talk), 05:12, 9 May 2009 (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.