Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jana Bellin


 * 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   keep. Courcelles 00:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Jana Bellin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Totally fails WP:GNG. Women's champions are not inherently notable (not being men), and no coverage in reliable sources. Potential BLP violations too. OGBranniff (talk) 06:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * A couple of queries, if I might - Female champions are not notable because they are not men? I mean - a man, having won an equivalent men's title, would be notable? Are the men's competitions different? You'll have to excuse me, I'm not a chess person, but is it the same as WP:NFOOTY where most (if not all) women's comps are non-professional and so playing in one does not confer notability? Stalwart 111  08:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the men's competitions are different. Females qualify for titles and championships under more lenient standards then men, which is ridiculous being that chess is not a physical sport. OGBranniff (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I understand - thanks for explaining it. Agree, yes, a bit strange. Is that distinction reflected in a policy of ours somewhere? I mean, male and female tennis players are both covered by WP:NTENNIS but the criteria is simply involvement in high-level tournaments, with no distinction made for finals qualifications, even though female competitors might reach a final having played fewer sets. Stalwart 111  08:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Womens' championship is not quite as notable as the "Mens'" championship (I put "mens'" in quotes since it is actually open to both genders) but still being the number one woman in your country several times over is an achievement that should garner some attention. Regarding WP:GNG I think the criteria are satisfied. There is this entry at chess.com, and the obituary of former husband Tony Milses here, in the Telegraph contains more than a few paragraphs about her. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. "Chess.com" is definitely not a reliable source, and their "chessopedia" that you cite is a wiki.  It's not peer-reviewed nor independently published.  As far as the Tony Miles obit goes, "Notability is not inherited."  So the subject of this article is less notable than "Britney Spears's Mom."  Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The chess.com link was probably not the best, but the Miles obituary is a valid source. Several of the paragraphs are about Bellin (not merely "Miles was married to Jana"), and that is non-trivial coverage. Note that Jana Bellin's primary achievements were in the 1970s, so I suspect that most of the coverage is not available freely online. A look at Google Books indicates that that is the case here. The sources are not available freely, but from the paragraphs sampled, the coverage in them appears non-trivial as well. Sjakkalle  (Check!)  20:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if that is true arguendo, it is not coverage in multiple reliable sources, per WP:GNG. An obituary once-removed does not an article make.  Check!  OGBranniff (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Women's champions are inherently notable.  "Women's champions are not inherently notable (not being men)" = OGBranniff is a pig, also with a very poor grasp of notability (see,  and .  He also has a poor grasp of reality or at least telling the truth, as women's champions are determined by tournament or match the same way as men's champions, in exactly the same way as tennis.  Quale (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yes, but whereas tennis is a physical sport, where women are known to lack against men. (see golf.)  Chess is a mental sport which should not have any sex-based "handicaps," unless you concede that women are inherently more stupid than men. OGBranniff (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @Quale: calling someone a "pig" would probably be considered a personal attack, or at least not particularly civil. So let's try to leave stuff like that out of an AFD. Stalwart 111  03:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I second the "pig" remark. Here User:OGBranniff accused me of masterbating because I disagreed with him on policy. There are other sexually-based obscenities and so on from this user, if you care to do any research, Stalwart111. There's total disrespect for editors and process here, and I fear all of these spurious and thoughtless AfDs are a joke and amusement for him. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And I'm not suggesting such things should go unpunished either. At all. I just mean that AFD is not WP:ANI or WP:RFC/U and commenting on other users doesn't do much for AFD process either, yeah? Best just to deal with this, with civility, close it out and then deal with broader issues in forums designed for such things. Stalwart 111  03:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't punish at Wikipedia; we "stop disruption". (Why didn't you know or remember that?) Making a case that an unending string of thoughtless, spurious AfDs is disruption, isn't going to be nearly as clear or feasible to achieve, than calling a spade a spade here. ("Forums designed for such things." Do you mean AN/I?! If so, that is amusing. "Nothing good ever comes from that place." -- Malleus Fatuorum. Clearly you are a believer in WP processes; not me, I don't believe in ghosts or other fiction.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha ha ha. Awesome. I've seen the "we don't punish" line before. But then I've also seen this. So... you know... "This is disruptive" is one thing. "This is disruptive and you are a pig" is just a bit pointless. Nothing good ever came of that either. Stalwart 111  04:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree philosophically. Truthfulness is always good, never bad. ("This is disruptive" is passe -- eminently ignorable. So nothing ever changes. "Pointless"? The comment you didn't like is the antithesis of pointlessness. It was honest, and, right to the point. Shades of Malleus. One can only respect that. Malleus called WP a failed Internet civility experiment. You seem to support that aim.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we're that far apart, but I know what you mean. Stalwart 111  05:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @Quale and OGBranniff: I think you're actually arguing the same point, but with some misunderstanding thrown in for good measure. For lack of a formal WP:NCHESSPLAYER or something, surely the inclusion criteria should be something akin to WP:NTENNIS and other such sports/games criteria, backed up by WP:GNG. All other things aside, surely being the 8-times British champion and having attained the highest honour in women's chess (as far as I can tell - that of Woman Grandmaster) is sufficient to be considered notable. In any other sports/games category, I would imagine such a record would confer notability without question. Stalwart 111  03:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep A Woman Grandmaster, two-time Chech Women's champion, eight-time British Women's Champion, bronze and silver medals in the Olympiads, a definite keep. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - on the basis of my comments above. Stalwart 111  03:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. (If there's a BLP violation [suggested by nom], then you flag it or correct it.) Another ill-conceived and exaggerated AfD nomination from User:OGBranniff. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * keep agree with Stalwart. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 07:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep There seems to be a wave of nuisance nominations going around. Jana B has just about achieved everything there is to achieve in chess other than becoming a world champion. Easiest 'keep' ever. Brittle heaven (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Perhaps the best known female in chess for several decades prior to the arrival of the Polgar sister. I've read many of articles that mention this lady in chess magazines over the years. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 02:18, 9 March 2013 (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.