Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Alexander Kennedy


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hugh Alexander Kennedy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

None of the claims in the article even allege notability, much less prove it. All this chap seems to have done is lose chess games. Is this a "losers hall of fame"? Wikipedia is not an antiquarian society to be filled with whatever curios about which anyone wants to write. This article definitely should have been speedied. Not notable in any way, shape, or form. OGBranniff (talk) 05:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Mild keep I added a reference to the Oxford Companion to Chess - Hooper and Whyld considered him notable enough to include in their paper encyclopedia. Also, most of the players in London 1851 chess tournament are notable enough for articles and he finished above some of those notable players.  In fact, everyone who scored more than zero points in the first round (and a couple who did not) are considered notable enough for a WP article. Kennedy went 2-0 in the first round and 3½-4½ in the second. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep A chess master prior to 1900 is a considerable claim. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 12:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bubba73. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep As Bubba73 said, if the Oxford Companion to Chess list him, he is notable.  D r e a m Focus  14:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This chessmaster is notable enough for mention in several chess books Keep him. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article demonstrates that Kennedy is notable. Quale (talk) 04:21, 12 March 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.