Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ľudovít Lehen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. I've been following this with interest and I endorse Dweller's praise for the constructive development of the debate. Ty 23:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ľudovít Lehen

Ľudovít Lehen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Disputed prod. I can't tell if this chap is indeed notable. No comprehensible evidence currently - the external links are not in English. Would appreciate some help with this one. Dweller (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm assuming he sets chess problems, which is a notable activity. I've posted to the Chess WikiProject, as well as those relating to Slovakia and Visual arts. I suspect he has below-par notability claims on all fronts, but clarity would be nice. --Dweller (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep based on being in the Slovak National Gallery in Bratislava, but I need to see some better references. I really can't tell at the moment what third-party references are available. freshacconcispeaktome 14:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems to be directly translated from this at the German wiki. He gets about 522 ghits. Maybe someone fluent in German can translate the page and we can evaluate this better. freshacconcispeaktome 14:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Is the article correct that he has a permanent exhibition at the Slovak National Gallery? Their website search doesn't find his name, nor does Google I'd tend to agree with Freshacconci that if it is true, that'd convey sufficient notability as an artist alone, bearing in mind Pawnkingthree's reasonable assertions (below) re chess. --Dweller (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Not any that I would know about, unfortunately for article. That is why I have based my Keep on his chess notability. Indeed I disagree with Pawnkingthree's view, let me elaborate below, in comment under his vote. --Ruziklan (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete:He was awarded the FIDE Master title for his chess compositions in 2005 by the Permanent Commission of the FIDE for Chess Compositions, according to this. It's the third highest title available for composing, after Grandmaster and International Master and has only existed since 1990. Unless Lehen's chess problems have attracted significant interest in any third party sources, I would suggest that FM level isn't sufficiently notable for inclusion on Wikipedia.Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Is there a delsort for AfDs in chess? I don't know anything about chess, so I'm out of my depth here. Maybe other chess experts could weigh in. As an artist, he seems notable, pending a better translation and clear references. freshacconcispeaktome 14:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, if not, I have posted to the Chess WikiProject, which presumably is what brought Pawnkingthree here. See my reply to Ruziklan above re his position as an artist. --Dweller (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment In the Handbook of chess composition kindly linked by you there are given all international title holders. Titles in chess composition are more rare than in the over-the-board chess. For getting FIDE Master title one have to gain at least 12 album points, i.e. to have at least 12 problems or 8 studies published in the FIDE Album. On pages 56-64 there are listed all composers having at least one composition in FIDE Album in whole history, and it is easy to see how few people are in double digits. Needless to say, most composers have never had any composition there. Ľudo has won many tournaments in magazines around globe and was repeatedly a member of team of Slovak national team in World Chess Composition Tournament, also winning silver medal in the 5th WCCT. Of course, any holder of GM or IM is more notable than FM, but that is longtime high level achievement anyway. --Ruziklan (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I was unsure how stringent the criteria were for FM level, that's all. If he's had tournament successes and had his work published in significant magazines then he would meet WP:N I guess.Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Actually, I would not say having one's work published in significant magazines is of sufficient notability as even the most prestigious magazines (English The Problemist, French Phénix, Dutch Probleembad, German Die Schwalbe, Russian The Ural Problemist, American StrateGems,, ...) publish works of virtually anyone. Many composers publish regularly almost everywhere, nevertheless they got zero Album points as FIDE Album is about quality. And quantity of quality (i.e. enough works placed in FIDE Album) is needed to get official international title. Technically, you just have to make 12 excellent problems for FIDE master. But in reality it takes years of high level composing. --Ruziklan (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: Still much more important in art than e.g. Verónica Ruiz de Velasco and more important in chess than myself :-) The composition chess titles are rare, much more than the "normal" titles, so I think that his is enough to be kept.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep (Note to closing admin - I'm the nominator) on basis of work as a notable chess puzzle composer. And note to all - this is a terrific example of a deletion debate. Kudos to all of you who've contributed. I must remember to file away a link to here to show newbies. --Dweller (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weakish Keep for the chess more than the art. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems notable enough. Hobartimus (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ruziklan and Ioannes Pragensis. Tankred (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, meets notability criteria, in my opinion. PS: I've rewritten most of the article to conform to Wiki usage and correct English, so if anyone is an expert on the topic I'd appreciate a look-over to make sure I didn't misrepresent anything accidentally. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep needs some clarification, per above..Modernist (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Notable in chess and art. (Caiaffa (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC))
  • Weak Delete on the basis of the chess aspect alone (I am a member of the WP:CHESS). I understand the good points developed by Ruziklan, Pawnkingthree, Ioannes Pragensis. However, the fact that there are few titled chess composers is mostly explained by the fact that there are few chess composers on the whole. In my (subjective, of course) opinion, chess composition is much less notable than chess itself (see for example coverage in newspapers or books), so the fact that someone is titled in chess composition is not a strong enough point to make him notable. SyG (talk) 06:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Without chess composers, the endgame theory would be significantly worse. While I believe, that just a FM title shouldn't be enough for notability (IM probably, GM is always) there are many composers on the pre-album-era that never had this chance so on the pre-1950-era we'de have to make other guidelines anyway. For now I'd like to point out some composers that had greatest impact on the endgame theory: Without Nikolay Grigoriev we'd know almost nothing about pawn endgames (Mikhail Zinar also widely discovered virgin land in pawn studies but less endgames). André Chéron, while not being the most notable composer, composed lots of theoretical endgames and wrote the Lehr- und Handbuch der Endspiele (published in 3, later 4, parts), which is even now - after 40 years - the best book ever written about this. Georgian composers (Iuri Akobia, David Gurgenidze, Velimir Kalandadze, Vazha Neidze) greatly exhausted the endgames with rooks and pawns only. Alexey Troitzky showed the Troitzky line, which is most important in the (rare) endgame of two knights against a pawn. Of course, most of this has nothing to do with the actual discussion but wanted to point out that composers are more important than you thought. Also, another reason may be that compositions generally take up less space - you can show twenty on only four to five pages while showing twenty games may take up several dozen pages - why compositions are seemingly less in magazines etc. --Constructor 13:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment I agree there are some chess composers without title that are still notable, especially in the oldest ones. My point was about the opposite: having the FM title is not enough to confer notability. Of course it is subjective, the notability should be judged on a case-by-case basis.
And I also agree chess composition has brought a lot of knowledge to endgames, but I still think chess composition is less notable than chess "over-the-board", as can be proved by the number and importance of references/books/mentions/etc. SyG (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The one thing you do wrong is to take absolute numbers instead of percentage. :-) --Constructor 00:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I think, that we can use criterias from WP:ATHLETE here, too: Notable are "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." Which is exactly what he did (FIDE Albums + member of the Slovak National Team).--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment As far as I understand, FIDE Albums are a "primary source" while WP:ATHLETE still requires some secondary sources, otherwise any obscure sport would become notable as soon as there is a federation. Are there some secondary sources for this person ? SyG (talk) 06:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
As much as I did not want to step in again as this could be understood as defending my personal friend, I think I can explain this. Primary sources in chess composition are books, journals, newspapers and websites where the compositions are originally published. FIDE Albums on the other hand are present selection of the best compositions published during three-years periods, selected in respective sections by panels of 3 expert judges + section directors. Problems published in primary sources are usually participating in primary competitions, for prizes, honourable mentions, commendations, places or whatever any (even obscure) organizer and/or judge deems suitable. But FIDE Album is something completely different, it is high-level secondary competition, where only best compositions can take points. To be sure, FIDE Albums get wide coverage in chess composition press and best results also coverage in columns in ordinary newspapers. Other official competitions are World Chess Composition Tournament (WCCT, competition between states, primary) and World Championship in Composing for Individuals (WCCI, secondary, i.e. for already published problems).
On more general note - is it acceptable according to all usual rules if I answer and explain more than I did up to now? --Ruziklan (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanations. So I understand that the mentioned chess problems had previously been published elsewhere, so that the FIDE albums are secondary sources indeed. About your general note, I don't think there is ever a problem in Wikipedia with giving more explanations. SyG (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment/Keep He's also an artist and a political prisoner. As a political prisoner, he's not notable, but he might be borderline notable as an artist. On top of the chess business. :) Protonk (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep - I'd echo these thoughts; borderline notability in at least two disciplines probably tips the balance in his favour. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral: a FIDE FM Chess composer seems to be below the level previously rejected in the case of Catherine Lip. Ľudovít has more then has chess notability however and am prepared to accept this is a worthwhile wikipedia topic. SunCreator (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2008 (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.