Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Macrae Aitken


 * 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) — Theopolisme   ( talk )  00:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

James Macrae Aitken

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Absolutely non-notable, failing WP:GNG in every conceivable way. The "sources" cited in the article do not have anything to do with the subject of the article. The article does not even assert that the subject is notable, much less prove it. Should have been speedied. OGBranniff (talk) 05:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm admittedly not too familiar with what makes a chess player notable or not, but a discussion here, between folks apparently more knowledgeable on the matter than I, seems to indicate that being a national champion of a large nation is often an indication of notability, if it can be properly sourced. Also, his rating of 2525 (source) is above the number mentioned in the discussion, but again, I'm not sure how that compares with other players.  AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. The statement you referenced is merely another editor's personal opinion on what he thinks may be notable.  That is not Wikipedia policy.  The editor himself stated that his own feelings about the notability of national champions may be "iffy."  This article fails WP:GNG.  OGBranniff (talk) 07:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. A manifestly poor nomination.  Subject is notable as ten time Scottish Chess Champion, representing Scotland in four Chess Olympiads, and work at Bletchley Park during WW II.  Contrary to the nominator's bald claim, these are all clear assertions of notability.  Quale (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC) I forgot to mention that this AFD is about as well motivated as that for, also by the same nominator.  Quale (talk) 06:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please discuss the content, not the contributor. Thank you.  By the way, Scotland hasn't been a sovereign nation since 1707 or so. OGBranniff (talk) 06:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Your contributions to Wikipedia are so worthless that it's nearly impossible to avoid discussing you.  Scotland fields independent teams in many international sports, including chess at the Olympiads.  Nigel Short has criticized this, but that doesn't change reality. Quale (talk) 07:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply. That's not very nice.  Say what you will, it doesn't change the fact that this chap fails WP:GNG.  There is not a more lenient notability policy just for chess-related articles, mind you.  Sorry but thanks for asking. OGBranniff (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree with Quale that the individual Scottish championships are sufficient grounds for an article. Coverage in Golombek's book as well as the Oxford Companion to Chess are grounds for the subject satisfying notability guidelines. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - there are entries about him in Golombek's Encyclopedia of Chess and The Encyclopedia of Chess by Sunnucks, so I think he is notable. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nomination an intentional disruption? Nominator have minimum WP competency? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep -- (1) surely a significant "sportsman" (2) inventor of a named variation. The article is badly structured, but that is merely a need to editing.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - clearly meets GNG, per coverage in several independent reliable sources. Sasata (talk) 16:46, 7 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.