Talk:Angel Yin

What's notable

Based on what I've seen in other articles about golfers, it is not necessary to leave out any accomplishment other than a win. A top ten finish should be good enough, given that some articles reach down to highlight 20th place: Here's a sentence from Rory McElroy's bio: "He finished the tournament tied for 20th place, two strokes under par for the tournament." Perhaps if an article has become overly lengthy, it's time to cut, but that ought to be discussed in the talk page before a cleaver is unilaterally applied. VanEman (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Wins are definitely notable, runner-up finishes are usually notable, best finishes if the player hasn't won are notable, top-10 finishes in majors are notable. If the article contains a summary by year/season, then top-10 finishes are usually noted but the included/reverted top-10 finish seems out of place. Why mention this one top-10 finish out of several in her career. There is nothing particular about this tournament as relates to this golfer, i.e. it isn't the best she's finished in her national open or a tournament that she is somehow connected to. So while the addition was factually correct, it's inclusion could be misleading to a reader as to it's notability. (P.S. The sentance from McIlroy's article refers to his finish in his first Masters Tournament and was part of several paragraphs on his 2009 performances - not the same.) Tewapack (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything that makes this other than your personal opinion. If it's factual and relevant and newspapers viewed it as important enough to mention, then it's notable. Another example: Annie Park : "Later in the year, at the Buick LPGA Shanghai, Park finished in a tie for second, one stroke behind winner Danielle Kang.[13]" Furthermore, the definition of "notability" for golfers does not even require that they've won any tournament: Golf[edit] Shortcut WP:NGOLF Golf figures are presumed notable if:

They have competed in the Ryder Cup, Presidents Cup, Solheim Cup or similar international competition They are enshrined in one of golf's recognized Halls of Fame (example: World Golf Hall of Fame) They have won at least one professional golf tournament (example: PGA Tour, LPGA Tour, European Tour, PGA Tour Champions) They have won at least one recognized amateur golf tournament at the national or international level (example: U.S. Amateur, British Amateur) They have made the cut in one of the four Men's major golf championships, one of the Women's major golf championships (past or present) or one of the Senior major golf championships (past or present) They have competed as a professional on the PGA, LPGA, European, or Champions Tour for at least one full year

Because ranking is based on points rather than the number of "wins", a player could be top ranked without having ANY wins. That would make for a silly article that says they're top ranked but without mentioning their performance at tournaments. As it says above even making the cut in some tournaments makes them notable.

VanEman (talk) 05:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The issue here is not to do with the notability of the person (WP:N), I don't think anyone is doubting that she qualifies. The issue at hand is what information should be included in the article. This is often a matter of balance. One principle is that recent events should have no preference over old events. On that basis, listing a tie for 4th place in the Australian Open only makes sense if we also list similar performances in the past. Yin was 2nd in the 2018 CP Women's Open (33.6 WWGR points) but this is not mentioned in the article. Her recent performance where she gained 9.99 WWGR points seems less impressive. Indeed it is her 8th most important finish based on WWGR points. Mentioning the 8th best but not mentioning 6 of the 7 above that, gives an unbalanced view. Nigej (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)