 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WikiProject class rating
editThis article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 21:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Notability
editTatsuaki Iwata is the highest grade (professional 9-dan), and hence exceeds the appropriate Wikipedia guideline for notability Wikipedia:WikiProject_Go#Notability_of_Professional_Go-players.
Trafford09 (talk) 14:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- The "appropriate guideline for notability"[citation needed] is just something you made up 5 minutes before linking it here, based on a single user's opinion in an AFD, which in turn was based on the mistaken assumption that all the Chess grandmasters are notable. I Strongly Oppose that. --M4gnum0n (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi M4gnum0n. Yes, I had just formulated that 'Go guideline', but of course I was quoting another user. It seems only right that there should be a Go guideline, as non-Go-players are not familiar with the grades of professional players. Wouldn't you agree with that much?
Consensus may need to be reached on which grade is appropriate for wp:N. By all means have your say - perhaps at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Go#Notability_of_Professional_Go-players itself. I thought I was on safe ground, as the precedent has been used in 3 cases that I know of.
Please could you say why you think that not all Chess grandmasters are notable? Do you know of any precedent supporting your view?
Of course, for this particular BLP, the player is a 9-dan (the highest available professional rank as you may know).
Thanks, Trafford09 (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Trafford09. I am going to elaborate on the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Go in the following days. See you there, --M4gnum0n (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think that would be the correct way forward. Thanks for letting me know. That page is obviously on my watchlist. Hopefully further good discussion and some properly-derived consensus can emerge. Cheers, Trafford09 (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)