Talk:Charles Walker (checkers player)

Conviction
Was put on the article by another user 2 years ago []. if others want to expand the article they can do that. To refer to well-sourced information as "controversial" is a rather bizzare rationale for an edit war. To refuse to expand the article upon repeated invitation and then unilaterally removing other's well sourced contributions because the article is "too small" is unjustifiable. John celona (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a clear case of undue weight in a BLP. I'm sorry, but the incident should not take 2/3 of what is supposed to be an encyclopedic bio. Also, I don't consider that a reliable source. For an item of this magnitude, there should be multiple strong reliable sources... --Jkp212 (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The person might not even be notable. I was trying to expand our coverage of checkers/draughts when I created this article. If you are concerned with BLP I'd go for just deleting this and making an article on the International Checker Hall of Fame instead. Anyway I included the crime on creating it because this seemed to be one of his most notable acts. He was apparently not national champ in any form of draughts or checkers.--T. Anthony (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree completely -- can you assist w the nomination? Thanks! --Jkp212 (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been kept, but I'm okay with that. The debate was reasonable and I learned things that made me almost reconsider. Although I think a separate article on the museum still might make sense.--T. Anthony (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)