Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawrence Trent


 * 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. Keeper |  76  17:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Lawrence Trent

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No reliable sources, no "notability," or real-world significance, and the only "source" is that of the website that employs him. OGBranniff (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - to be fair, I don't think ChessBase (based in Germany I think) employ him. ChessBase is more a publisher here, and lots of chess authors have material published through ChessBase. The thing that might make Trent borderline notable (IMO) is being co-host of a podcast called The Full English Breakfast. The other host is GM Stephen J. Gordon. There might be more that I'm not aware of, but I don't think there is much. Carcharoth (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: ChessBase is considered a reliable source by WP:CHESS and used in many articles (such as the GA Magnus Carlsen). The premise on which the nominator's deletion rationale is based is thus blatantly false. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment in opposition. Your claim that "Chessbase" is considered a reliable source is supported nowhere on this site. Of course, if you can cite to any past discussion that proves your point I will concede, but I searched the WP:CHESS archives and found nothing saying that "Chessbase" is considered a reliable source. OGBranniff (talk) 06:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply to comment in opposition: See, comment by User:Bubba73 at 18:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC). Toccata quarta (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, User:Toccata quarta. I am familiar with both ChessBase and Chessgames.com, as I use Chessgames.com on a regular basis to look up historical games.  I believe Bubba73's comment was in the context of the historical game notations, namely, that ChessBase and Chessgames.com are reliable sources for the purposes of citing game notations only.  I know that Chessgames.com cannot be used as a source for anything other than the games themselves, and the Chessgames.com article has been even deleted a few times.  Therefore ChessBase is not a reliable source, generally speaking.  Thanks. OGBranniff (talk) 08:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In the context of chess news websites, ChessBase.com is about as significant as CNN or The New York Times in non-specialist journalism. What source do you suggest using for chess news? ChessVibes? Or do you just suggest nuking articles, and concluding with a triumphant "Magnus Carlsen is not notable" announcement? Toccata quarta (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point, actually. But since WP:CHESS is part of Wikipedia, we should use the standard Wikipedia policies and guidelines for notability like WP:GNG, WP:RS, and WP:V.  If you are suggesting that these policies are too strict for chess-related articles, you have every right to propound your viewpoint -- however, these changes need to have community consensus before they are implemented.  In any case, major players like Magnus Carlsen have plenty of coverage in the mainstream, traditional media.  Nobody here is saying that Carlsen, Fischer, Kasparov, etc. are not notable.  OGBranniff (talk) 09:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But apparently your "etc." did not extend to Andrew Soltis, here's what you wrote: "Like, we don't have problems finding third-party sources that vouch for Bobby Fischer, Magnus Carlsen, Hikaru Nakamura, etc. The fact that such sources are not extant for Andrew Soltis means that he is not notable under wikipedia standards. If he is not notable under Wikipedia standards then his article should be deleted." (The AfD was SNOW-closed.) I'm tired of OGBranniff warpath of nuking articles, I find this entire thread (and apparently more to come) disruptive. To suggest that ChessBase is not a reliable source is more of the same nonsense. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Instead of just saying you are "tired of it," can you please explain what makes ChessBase a reliable source? And why are you talking about Andrew Soltis instead of addressing the AFD here?  Is it really because you have nothing to say in support of keeping this article?  Furthermore, multiple reliable sources were found about Andrew Soltis that covered the subject in depth, such as the New York Times.  If such sources exist for this "Lawrence Trent" fellow, then I agree this article should be kept.  Do you know of any?  Thanks, OGBranniff (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note. Also, ChessBase is a database of chess games. How is it in any way a "reliable source" about news, people, and events (i.e., stuff that's not chess game notations)?  Also, how is this The only source for the article in any way "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources."  The conclusion to delete is overwhelmingly clear.  OGBranniff (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ChessBase.com is more than just a chess database. And I imagine it's a reliable because GMs like Anish Giri, Alejandro Ramírez, Sergei Shipov et al. have written articles for it. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if you can find an article on "ChessBase" written by a reputable author about Lawrence Trent, just let us know and we'll discuss it. Until then, the article fails WP:GNG.  Delete. Thank you.  OGBranniff (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 12:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

 WikiProject Chess has been informed of this discussion. J04n(talk page) 12:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I couldn't find anything substantial in an internet search to indicate sufficient notability (per WP:Notability "... address the subject directly in detail", "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention"); the typical minimum standard for notability in WP:Chess is a Grandmaster title (and even that's not enough automatically ensure notability in some cases). I suspect there might be something about Lawrence in British Chess Magazine or Chess magazine, neither of which I have access to. I support deleting this, with the knowledge that it could be recreated if proper sources were found. Sasata (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Like Sasata, I came up blank when it came to finding substantial multiple independent, reliable, articles about the subject. Even the lone source at chessbase-shop.com (NOT chessbase.com, but the online store, which utterly fails WP:RS no matter what one thinks of chessbase.com itself) doesn't really establish notablity.  He's created two DVD's (neither of which are notable) and finished 7th at a youth championship in 2003, which isn't notable either.  -- ShinmaWa(talk) 20:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Trent is a very visible chess media personality. A third of the Full English Breakfast blog team, he is a broadcaster at the very top level, a published writer, creator/presenter of DVDs, active tournament player at a high level, a titled International Master (IM) etc. If we consider his chess title alone, it is higher level than some others here on WP have attained. Our general rule of thumb is GM (or IM with additional notable skills). Clearly he has those extra skills, in the same way as IM Mark Dvoretsky is known for his coaching. And Chessbase is clearly a reputable source. Brittle heaven (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So where are the sources that "... address the subject directly in detail"? Sasata (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well it depend what you want. There are many sources that refer to him doing the things I list. Just Google his name and lo, there they all are. But if you want someone in the New York Times delivering chapter and verse about how well he conducted his interview with Carlsen, or what an interesting presentation he gave, or what a good game he played with GM Kotronias, well then ... it's easy to always demand a greater level of detail than can actually be found. In my eyes at least, lots of passing mentions and a consistent high profile more or less equals significant coverage. Sure, he's not Magnus Carlsen, but has performed in one way or another across the chess spectrum, including his work for Chessbase and at the London Classic, one of the foremost chess events in the world. Brittle heaven (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Lucky for you we have a guideline for "lots of passing mentions": WP:MILL.   Just being mentioned is not enough.   He has to be notable.  Amazon is chock-full of "published authors" and people who have created niche DVD's on everything from chess to UFOs.  The Internet has more bloggers than you can shake a stick at.  We can find lots of "passing mentions" for all them.   However, very few of them are actually notable.   This is why the threshold is "non-trivial" coverage.  Also, I fully reject the statement that he is "a broadcaster at the very top level".   When he becomes a regular on the BBC, THEN he'll be a presenter at the very top level.    Lastly, we've yet to see an actual citation from Chessbase itself.   We've seen one from his author's blurb at Chessbase's online store (not notable nor reliable) but nothing from the site proper.  -- ShinmaWa(talk) 03:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As I say, you can always ask for a step higher than is available, in order to try to 'prove' your point. And as for the BBC ... well it may have escaped your notice that the BBC don't run shows on the London Classic, or any other top chess event for that matter. So it's a bit like saying Neil Armstrong wasn't a notable astronaut because he failed to make a landing on Pluto. You aspire to what is the best possible and if you achieve it, then you have made the top level. Brittle heaven (talk) 03:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not User:Shinmawa that is asking for a "step higher than is available." What is asking for that is Wikipedia notability and verifiability policy.  And if you cannot provide that "step" for which the policy asks, then the article gets deleted.  Your analogy about Neil Armstrong is patently ridiculous by the way.  What we are saying is the subject of the article is not notable based on some mention in the Chessbase online store and other trivial mentions elsewhere.  OGBranniff (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It didn't escape my notice. However, I wasn't the one who claimed he is a "top tier broadcaster", either.  I think Neil Armstrong, however, got more than "passing mentions".   Your analogies and definitions confound me.   Okay, we'll make this simple.  Find us one article of any substance, written by ANY reputable author (other than himself) in a reputable source that focuses on Mr. Trent (no passing mentions).  We're not looking for the front page of the New York Times.  We're not even asking for the third to the last page of the Sun.  We're willing to look at anything as long as it is reliable, reputable, secondary, and non-trivial.   Anything.  If you can present that much, perhaps we can have a real discussion.   ...and please don't just tell me to go Google it myself.  If you want to make the argument, please present it yourself.  -- ShinmaWa(talk) 04:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is becoming tedious now. As I have already said, Trent is obviously a high profile chess player and chess media personality at this current time, commentating on some of the largest, most prestigious chess tournaments around, in addition to his IM title which is just one step away from the recognised article-eligible GM title. He is just the sort of person that the public want to look up on WP to find out more (- more of course is needed in the article, but good articles were'nt born in a day). We developed the 'IM plus other skills' criteria in the early days of the wikiproject in order that we didn't have to waste time arguing the toss over every person who didn't quite fit the model reference mold. Yes, I can see that I could indeed enter references from the 'Telegraph online' for example, or I could spend a while going through old chess magazines, but as I can see you have already made your mind up and will say it is too superficial or too 'passing', or not detailed enough, or the Telegraph isn't reliable or whatever, then there's no point in me wasting my time. The point is, it shouldn't be necessary in the case of someone like Trent, who is obviously high profile within the chess community (maybe not in your world). So if you want to delete him, be my guest. It's only the usefulness of WP that suffers. There are hundreds of chess articles that you can tear down in this way, that are improperly sourced - let's delete the lot, regardless of what common sense says. After all, rules are rules, eh? My vote is to keep, but if others think not, then that's fine by me. I won't be wasting any more time on this wave of nuisance nominations by the way. And when Branniff has succeeded in his personal quest to remove as many British chess articles as possible, future editors will simply add them back in. A very sensible use of everyone's time. Brittle heaven (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If he is so high profile, then it should be easy to CITE A SOURCE.  If you have something from the Telegraph, SHARE IT (The Telegraph more than meets Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source).   However, you are right, this is getting tedious.   We keep asking for a source so we can have a discussion with cited references rather than unfounded assertions, but rather you presuppose our motivations and put words in our mouths.  If you can give us sources that meet Wikipedia's (not ours, but Wikipedia's) criteria of WP:V and WP:RS, I very well may change my !vote.   However, you and everyone else have failed to do so. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 15:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * See . Toccata quarta (talk) 07:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Response to Toccata. How are those any more than trivial, fleeting, and passing mentions? OGBranniff (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Did I ever make that claim? Toccata quarta (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Then why bother commenting at all? What "claim" were you postulating with your terse and vague "see . . ." above?  To simply show that Mr. Trent lacks any in-depth coverage in any source?  OGBranniff (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Because one editor told another "If you have something from the Telegraph, SHARE IT", but received no reply, so I provided the material for him, so that he could judge it. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, that makes sense. None of the coverage meets GNG unfortunately.  Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - Lawence is almost a GM, according to FIDE he reached 2487(http://ratings.fide.com/id.phtml?event=408638), so he's unfortunate not quite a GM yet. He is a chess author, but not a major one. ChessBase is a reliable source in my opinion in that it has editors which check content like a newspaper and published information to a high quality, in practice higher then most newspapers. I haven't found anything published about Lawrence that is substantial or likely to meet WP:GNG. I did find, http://chessbase-shop.com/en/authors/39, and items on 4ncl.co.uk such as http://www.4ncl.co.uk/download/chessmag1213/08-13%204NCL.pdf (game on page 9). So I conclude it is a weak delete but am open to changing my vote if a substantial reliable source is found. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 21:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak delete basically per SunCreator. Trent is an IM, which is a high performance level, but not the top echelon, even at the national level, and normally I would want to see a bit extra. Trent is not all that obscure, and the article correctly points out his efforts in providing commentary at major tournaments such as the London Chess Classics, but the coverage I have seen of Trent here is tangential, nothing about Trent. The published DVDs that Trent could have produced could have provided notability if they had extensively been the subject of independent and reliable reviews, but I see no evidence of that either. The overall problem here is poor sourcing. The only cited source is a self-published presentation by the ChessBase shop which is OK for basic facts but not one that lends notability. I have the nagging feeling that Trent is very close to being notable, and I would be happy if someone could prove with some sourcing that he is notable enough, but at the present time I am not seeing it. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This BLP does not meet WP:GNG. If additional RS exist (as claimed), they belong in the article.  Mini  apolis  13:53, 15 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.