Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Wall


 * 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. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill Wall

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A RfC (see Talk:Bill Wall was initiated on this page. It was an autobiography (by User:Billwall2, hence WP:COI and had issues: read like a resume, and the sources were self-published. I like chess so I wanted to help. I sat down, edited out the CV-like bits, and removed self-published references. Then I removed the references that didn't support the cited statement (they were mostly just links to the website of the organisation mentioned). See the pre-Puchiko version here. It looks okay, has a decent reflist and is quite long, but once you look closer, it's Geocities, blogs, user profiles, or homepages of chess organisations that don't mention him. Once I saw what happened of the article after my edit, I began to believe WP:BIO is not met. The presidency of said chess organisation (North Carolina Chess Associations, many chess clubs) isn't verifiable, nor really notable. If as anything, Wall is notable as an author, definitely not as a player or organiser. Puchiko (Talk-email) 11:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No objective sources to support notability. Additionally, Mr. Wall has linked dozens of articles to his blog, at the very least a conflict of interest, and perhaps a mass-spamming. 99.155.206.229 (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep RS sources mention him such as,   shows "Chess Enterprises" publishing a book.  See  showing The most unique of small American chess publishers is surely Bob Dudley's Chess Enterprises. Mentioned in other books?  Yes.   World's most notable chess expert? No.  Article formerly puffy? Yes.  Sufficient for WP notability standards? Yes. Collect (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment All the above are peripheral mentions, and the reference to Bob Dudley doesn't appear relevant. If there existed a single article about him it would be a start, but a few mentions of his blog don't nearly suffice. The publishing of a book doesn't establish notability, unless that book has been the subject of multiple reviews in major sources. 99.155.206.229 (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The mention of the publisher was to make clear that at least one book was not SPS. WP does not require multiple reviews of books to establish notability for the author as far as I can tell.    shows mention of him in a clear RS.   shows an RS book citing his blog page as a source for chess deaths.    shows an RS book quoting extensively from one of his books.  And so on.  So we have the fact that his work is cited and extensively quoted in RS sources.   We have RS sources referring to him directly.  Seems that he may not be the world's most noted person, but that is not a requirement on Wikipedia . Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed that he doesn't have to be the most noted person--the latest links are helpful, though I think the strongest one is the lengthier reference from the Boston source. In total, these may establish a meeting of the first guideline of WP:AUTHOR, though my interpretation is that most of these mentions are essentially footnotes. Best, 99.155.206.229 (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. There isn't adequate reliable sourcing to write an article. - MrOllie (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Being the author of several chess books, many of which are in my possession, should be sufficient to ensure his notability. Bill Wall is also one of the most reliable sources on the history of chess, particularly in the 20th century. As an example take this detailed account if the history of chess in Russia Chess in Russia. His page should really be maintained. All the best, --Gabodon (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:AUTHOR. Subject would meet requirements of point #1 if there was secondary coverage, which there is not. Google Scholar has barely a handful of citations from his books. As Puchiko notes, most of the sources that mention him are not reliable sources. Nothwithstanding his many e-books and print books, there is not much to make this subject notable per Wikipedia standards. Yoninah (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. The references used are not authoritative, notable sources. And the reason for that is: the subject himself is not notable. SyG (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete A search of ""Bill Wall" chess" returns almost only user- summit ed summited content sites.  No reliable sources could be found to salvage this article.Curb Chain (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2011 (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.