Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Parham


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Bernard_Parham
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Lacks both notability and reliable sources. Parham was only a national master for a few years, which is far below the standard for a player's inclusion on strength alone. (GM level or higher) Furthermore, he didn't "invent" any opening. 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5?! is a silly move that has been around for a long time and has been called a bunch of various names throughout the years. The "Matrix System" also sounds iffy as something new, and the idea that it's the only notation that maintains information when rotated 180 degrees is nonsense considering standard algebraic notation does the same thing! On a related note guys, ChessDrum is a REALLY bad source. There has been so much factually inaccurate nonsense and falsehoods I have had to delete from other articles which referenced it as a source. Unfortunately, they are also the only source about him. Delete ChessPlayerLev (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 02:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Question for nominator: Where does it say he "invented" the opening? Since the article's inception April 5, 2009, it states "famous for advocating a chess opening known as the Parham Attack." And the Parham Attack article states "The opening is named after American chess master Bernard Parham, the first master-level player known to have advocated it." Nothing is stated about "inventing" the opening – I'm wondering where you're coming up with "he didn't 'invent' any opening" as a claim you seem to think needs refutation. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply No one did claim that he invented the opening. I was just noting that Parham didn't do so, since if he did, that would certainly make him notable enough for an article.  However, on top of this, the opening should not be called the "Parham Attack" at all.  I started a topic on this on the relevant Talk Page, but there is not a single credible source (opening book, reputable publication or website) for 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 being called the "Parham Attack" beside the aforementioned awful chessdrum website.  In the few opening resources that this variation appears in, it's referred to as "The Patzer Opening".  Nowhere, besides that geocities-esque site, have I found anyone calling it the "Parham Attack".ChessPlayerLev (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me understand this... You concede that no one claimed Parham "invented" the 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 opening. Yet you remind us he "didn't 'invent'" the opening. And you do that, because "if he did 'invent'" the opening, then that would be cause for notability. (Is that right? If it is, then it presumes that chess openings are "invented", outside of being named after someone, or someone advocating, an opening. Can you find for me one WP article on a chess opening that says a party "invented" it? Otherwise, I'm confused with the word play here. [Wouldn't you say Parham researched and tested lines in the opening? He played it in tourneys. What does "invention" mean to you beyond exploration, analysis, identification, testing, practice? Are you creating your own term here? And if you are, why are you applying your own term, of unknown definition, on someone for evaluation here, as an argument against? How does that make sense?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You're right; "invent" is a word rarely used. (Hence my quotes) Usually, it's "named", instead.  Regardless, it shouldn't even be named after Parham to begin with!  (See the discussion above) It's as ridiculous as me playing 1. a4 and then having a single, uncredible personal blog call it "Lev's Opening".  ChessPlayerLev (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You got me totally confused, and I give up! (You appear to be saying you really didn't meant "invent", but "named". But then you're claiming what? The opening is not, or cannot, be named after him, because why? Because the opening has had other names too? What is your 1.a4 argument? If you researched, analyzed, played, and advocated an opening beginning 1.a4, there is every chance in the world it might end up with your name on it. [Why not?] What your argument is -- I have no idea.) Ihardlythinkso (talk)


 * And BTW, another argument in the nomination, "The 'Matrix System' ... the idea that it's the only notation that maintains information when rotated 180 degrees is nonsense considering standard algebraic notation does the same thing!" seems to be based on your misunderstanding. The "maintains information when rotated 180 degrees" refers to the piece symbols, which look the same rightside-up as upside-down, compared to regular piece symbols, like in a diagram (normal chess fonts). That's what they meant, you seem to have totally misconstrued that, in your argument and criticism against. (Since the criticism is erroneous, how about striking it from your nom case?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I have looked into what "The Matrix System" is. It's basically the EXACT same as algebraic notation except with a different symbol for the pieces.  No one uses this.  Also, I didn't "misconstrue" anything; when you say "maintain information when rotated 180 degrees", you're referring to the BOARD.  For instance, descriptive notation does NOT maintain information when the board is rotated 180 degrees (the moves recorded in this manner would no longer make sense), while algebraic notation does.  ChessPlayerLev (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No, you misconstrued what they meant. They meant the piece symbols, compared to normal chess font piece symbols, like I *already wrote*. The argument in your nom is therefore erroneous and misleading. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "What they meant" and what was actually written are two entirely separate things. The line in Parham's article (since deleted by me) stated this;


 * One of the advantages of the Matrix Notation is that it is rotatable 180 degrees without any loss of orientation information.


 * "Orientation information", by standard chess usage, refers to the board, not the symmetry of the piece symbols. Once again, while this is something that DN (descriptive notation) does not maintain, it is very much true for the standard AN (algebraic notation).ChessPlayerLev (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You're right; the way it was stated in the article, was incorrect. But, that is easily changed/corrected. (What is wrong and erroneous, is your argument in the nomination, since it was based on the incorrect way it was stated in the article. A nomination and !votes should be based on fact, if facts are known. I was telling you here that facts are known, and you should strike the erroneous argument you made in the nom. Get it?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete (or redirect, see below). The "matrix notation" is hardly used, and I cannot see that inventing it confers any notability. Regarding 2.Qh5?! (a move that is usually used in the hope of getting a Scholar's Mate), I am not to worried about whether Parham actually invented it. Many openings are named after players that didn't invent the move, but who analyzed the line. Therefore, I have no problems with the article Parham Attack being at its current title. However, notability is not inherited, and I think the Parham Attack is more notable than its namesake, largely because of Hikaru Nakamura (the USA's top player) trying it on a few occasions. Regarding playing strength, his FIDE rating card shows a FIDE rating of 1859 (which is lower than even my rating), but it has probably been higher before. His USCF rating is currently 2001, but has been at 2200+ before (so the "master" title claim is at least true.) Generally, players are notable at the GM level (around 2500), sometimes players with lower ratings are considered notable as well on other merits. Parham falls a bit short of that mark. Sjakkalle (Check!)  17:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per Sjakkalle. (But does anyone object if I take the info from the currently remaining three sentences in the article, and include that info at Parham Attack, in the form of a footnote?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of the relevant information about Parham, him being a master who advocated 2.Qh5, is already in the Parham Attack article, but I think we could add the birth date or year as well. "Matrix notation" however is not relevant for that article, and I'm doubtful that it is notable enough to merit coverage anywhere in Wikipedia. (I have no objection to a redirect to Parham Attack if that could be a useful pointer.) Sjakkalle (Check!)  19:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, makes sense. (Not enough for a footnote then, so I limited to putting birth in the infobox here. If not okay let me know, will revert.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment "Matrix notation" is in the link, and it is not notable. The ChessDrum article says that in 1995 he got a letter from the US Chess Federation permitting it in tournaments.  It is not an accepted form of chess notation by the USCF, nor by FIDE, and probably no chess organization in the world.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. (I restored & corrected on the basis that reason given during the removal was based on incorrect reading of the source. But I agree there is diff reason for ultimate removal.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2012 (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.