Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Walker (chess player)


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Bobby Walker (chess player)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not notable for his chess achievements. SyG (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I think his achievements are not international, but we also have a lot of articles about football- or basketball-players who play in lower leagues. And the article's sources appear to be neutral and reliable. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content.
 * Comment - those 'football- or basketball-players who play in lower leagues' would be fulll time professionals, even if not the best, thus they can meet wiki notability for a sports person. Does Bobby Walker meet WP:ATH in anyway? SunCreator (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - SyG your being biased towards an individual who has NATIONAL RANKINGS, where do we draw the line? I mean not everyone can be Bobby Fischer, and honestly I am sure there are a good amount of people who do not know who he is...But how can we know if every individual who is a valid potential candidate for WIKI is become subject to this scrutiny of a few...this is a sight FOR THE PEOPLE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.215.147 (talk • contribs)
 * Well, as you say, not everyone can be Bobby Fischer, and not everyone can be on Wikipedia. This person does not have particularly notable achievements. I do not understand what you mean by "having national rankings", anyone who pays his fee will subscribe to the national chess federation and hence will have a "national ranking". Once he becomes a grandmaster, that's something else. SyG (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - That my friend is your opinion, but I do believe Wikipedia does not specify NOTORIETY to a GRANDMASTER...if that were so we would not see alot of chess players on here...the simple fact is Bobby Walker passes the General Wikipedia:Notability Guidelines
 * "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
 * "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
 * "Sources,"[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.
 * "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.
 * "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not." "Wikipedia:Notability ." Wikipedia (2008): 1. Web. 23 Jan 2010.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.215.147 (talk • contribs)

And SyG a reasonable person could not deny that on the grounds of general notability established by this site that Mr. Walker's achievements how every minuscule they might seem to you do fit the criteria. So I ask that you let the page stand as is. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.215.147 (talk • contribs)


 * Comment The article says that he was 5th in the eastern divisoon of the 2004 U.S. Chess Championship. I don't think the US Championship has such divisions, so it must be a junior or high school event.  Bubba73 (You talking to me?), 22:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply: It was neither of those but it was NOT the US Championship (see the article talk page). Bubba73 (You talking to me?), 05:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment According to the USCF, he hasn't reached a master rating - see external links in the article and its talk page. The article as at least one more factual inaccuracy. Bubba73 (You talking to me?), 00:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Bubba73 theres a reason that people put up sources at the bottom of the page....do some leg work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.215.147 (talk • contribs)


 * Reply: I did the leg work and found three major factual errors in the first three things I checked. Bubba73 (You talking to me?), 05:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, insufficiently notable, sources do not establish notability. Hairhorn (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete not notable enough. Bubba73 (You talking to me?), 05:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The state championships are generally open tournaments and not among the most prestigious events. While they feature some strong players, they are generally below the Grandmaster and even International Master level where a player can start being considered a professional. Mr Walker's peak rating is also some 200-300 points short of this level. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable. An Elo rating of 2200 (the minimum for National Master in the U.S.) would not, without more, be notable. Over 100,000 players in the world have such a rating. It is not clear that Walker has achieved even that: as Bubba73 shows on the article's Talk page, Walker apparently has not reached a 2200 rating (he is currently in the low 2100s) and he is only the 17th highest-rated player in Kentucky, a state not known as a chess powerhouse. Krakatoa (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable.  His rating (combined with his age) is not notable enough; there was some debate over whether the Kayden Troff article should be kept. Kayden was about the same strength as this guy back then, and is still much younger.  As mentioned already, there are also quite a few factual errors on the page itself.  I see no good reason to keep this article. GrandMattster 21:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - in general a chess player requires either IM status or to be a prominent chess author, arbiter, or teacher for notability and he's not there yet. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - No indication he is a notable chess player. Merely having a ranking is insufficient. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2010 (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.