Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Blandford


 * 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. Courcelles 00:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hugh Blandford

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Total non-entity. Fails WP:GNG. Should be speedied. Why did this guy even get an article in the first place? OGBranniff (talk) 06:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete can't see how he is notable and can not find anything reliabe. GAtechnical (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * How about the books by (each of) Gaige, Roycroft, and Sunnucks? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. "Total non-entity" is an inappropriately snide comment by the juvenile nominator, since Blandford achieved more than OGBranniff (the true non-entity) ever will. Chess composition is not really my thing, but Blandford is notable in that field as demonstrated by his inclusion in chess reference works such as Gaige and Sunnucks.  He earned the title International Judge for Chess Composition, another indication of notability.  de:Hugh Blandford has a little more than we have here, but unfortunately I don't have the Roycroft book so I can't do a better job of inline citation.  The obits in BCM and The Times given under Further reading could provide two more print references for the article, but I don't have access to those either. Quale (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Sorry but it is your responsibility to produce those sources. Until you can, your chimerical "sources" are no better than saying "My roomate's cousin's uncle's housitter's sister says she heard it's notable."  Es tut mir leid, mein Herr. OGBranniff (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. That's wrong. It isn't his responsibility. According to policy, RSs supporting an article's notability must exist -- they don't necessarily have to be in the article as a precondition to stop DELETE. (And, is there some point behind breaking into German language in response? Is the reason to do that in any way related to this?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Multiple secondary sources establish notability. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources that Bubba73 point out are sufficient coverage for an article. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The AfD is misguided and baseless. User:OGBranniff seems to think anything inadequately sourced deserves the axe. That is not definition of notability or of process. User:OGBranniff needs to review WP:BEFORE. At Guide to deletion it says: "It is recommended that you describe the steps you have taken to check that your nomination is appropriate, including any search for reliable sources you have done. This may prevent duplication of effort and inoculate your nomination from being labelled as spurious or thoughtless." That is what we have here from this user: ongoing spurious and thoughtless AfD nominations. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I am no chess expert, but he looks notable to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:47, 9 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.