Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gordon Crown


 * 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   speedy keep. The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user. This AFD could be speedy deleted as WP:CSD, but since the discussion has gone on for a few days I will let it be. Sjakkalle (Check!)  20:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Gordon Crown

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This persona fails "general notability guidelines." There is no substantial coverage in any reputable sources. Yes, there are passing mentions in niche sources and blogs, but that is not enough to merit an article here on Wikipedia. In addition to the notability doctrine on Wikipedia, the article does not make a prima facie case that the subject is worthy of note at all, other than he died of appendicitis at age 18. Is everyone that has died young now worthy of an encyclopedia article? This should have been speedied. Cruft. Not only that, but the article is very POV, full of subjective claims and "weaselly words" about the subject. Ohlendorf77 (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, his notability is particular to his sport, but the sources cited seem pretty mainstream within his sport. This is certainly not a recent topic, so I would suggest that his life is a notable sport story about chess. I would not say his notability is high, but chess is a topic with wide interest, and it looks like he has significant notability within the chess community. Ultimately, it is more the fact that people remember him that makes him notable than the fact that he did something "great", since that is separate from notability. The article could certainly use improvement though Jztinfinity (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Chess magazine is indeed a mainstream publication in the chess community, probably one of the 3 or 4 highest circulation chess magazines. Edward Winter is not a mere "blogger" but a respected chess historian, noted for his thoroughness to the point of abrasiveness. Crown's death was covered in the mainstream press at the time in Britain, Australia, Canada and the US; several of these sources described him as a "prodigy" and noted his win against Alexander Kotov. I'm not saying the article should necessarily cite these sources (though it could if an editor feels it appropriate), merely noting that they exist. I actually consider the niche chess publications to be more reliable sources of chess information than the mainstream press, which often gets details wrong. Finally use of the term "cruft" in an Afd discussion is unhelpful. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep based on added strength of historic sources linked by User:MaxBrowne, some of which should be in the article. Notability doesn't expire with time. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep the article is the opposite of everything the opposer says. They ARE reputable sources, they AREN'T passing mentions, but full articles that are sourced, the article DOESN'T only refer to his appendicitis, and playing for your country and defeating a leading soviet grandmaster while a teenager DOES confer notability. Brittle heaven (talk) 11:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep -- as a member of the national team. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:GNG.  Nominator is likely a sock. Quale (talk) 02:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Insufficient reliable source coverage.  WP:MILL.  Nichecruft, spam article. Talkingfacts2 (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2013 (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.