Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Troff


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 20:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy Troff

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The notability is unclear to me. Being in the top 100 in the US for his age is not notable to me (being in the top 10 in the World would be). Being Utah High School Chess Champion is not notable to me. Winning the Salt Lake Open could possibly be notable, not by itself, but if he is the youngest in the world to win such a tournament or something like that. Being "top for his age in quick chess" is too vague to be credible. SyG (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Troff has been in the top 100 for his age for an extremely long time, which is certainly a great accomplishment.  He is extremely talented for his age, and has won several important tournaments, including the Salt Lake Open two years ago (at age 15 or 16) and the High School Championship this year.  He has great potential, and is an extremely promising youth.  I say keep.  GrandMattster 18:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Notability is a current value, and can change over time. Troff may very well be a chess grandmaster one day -- but his future skill and reputation is not relevant to his present notability.  I am inclined towards delete for now, and remake the article when Troff competes in major international tournaments. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Being top 100 in an age group is a respectable personal achievement, but hardly worthy of a Wikipedia article. The notability just isn't there (yet). Sasata (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've looked for sources, but there seems to be little, if anything, outside of the Utah chess scene - i can't find any widespread coverage. I think there's a consensus on WikiProject Chess that being a state champion is not, in itself, enough to confer notability. He simply hasn't done enough yet. By all means re-create the article at a later date if he does fulfill that potential.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - not notable enough at this point. Bubba73 (talk), 20:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would keep this page so that people can keep tabs on this rising star. I concede that Jeremy may not be as notable as his brother Kayden, but he is still a talented young player that many would like to keep a watch on. I still say Keep. GrandMattster 20:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you personally involved with Troff in any way? Bubba73 (talk), 20:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I do know the Troffs. I have taken classes from Jeremy and Kayden both, and played in tournaments with and against them several times.  But I assure you that even if I did not know Jeremy, I would support keeping this page.  GrandMattster 19:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is being involved with Troff reason to doubt my credibility? GrandMattster 19:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It may be a possible indication of involuntarily overstating the notability of the subject. After all, notability is a very subjective notion. SyG (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a possible conflict of interest. Bubba73 (talk), 20:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems logical, but not grounds for my discredit, or for the article being deleted. GrandMattster 17:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. As a rule of thumb, Grandmasters (about 2500+) are notable, while International Masters (about 2400+) are a bit iffy; we may keep them if there is something substantial to write. USCF rating has not been over 1900 at any point, which means that he is still below expert level (2000+), and on par with that of a strong amateur. Troff's rating is certainly high for his age, and much higher than my rating, but age-restricted state championships are not among the most prestigious of tournaments in existence. Whether this is a future grandmaster or not is too early to tell, and WP:CRYSTAL suggests we should not be trying to make such predictions. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I forgot about the crystal ball principle. Delete (and userfy) without prejudice to remaking the article when Troff achieves IM or GM ranking. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Sjakkalle. In absolute terms, his rating is still very low, and it's impossible to know whether he will eventually became a notable player. Most players on the "top 100 under 15 in the U.S." and such lists will not - they'll either lose interest and/or hit a plateau at a non-notable level. I was once on a top-50 list myself. Krakatoa (talk) 02:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reference for that? GrandMattster 15:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but if you think about it has to be true. Many thousands of players have been on such lists over the years, and there are far fewer than 1,000 (are there even 100?) Grandmasters and International Masters in the United States. Indeed, even extremely strong players often do not attain the International Master title, let alone the Grandmaster title. Confining myself to Chicago players, Andrew Karklins played in the U.S. Closed Championship twice, getting an even score in one of them. Greg DeFotis got a +2 score in the 1972 U.S. Closed Championship, in a field that included 7 GMs and 1 future GM. Albert Chow and Leonid Kaushansky tied for first in the 1994 U.S. Open Chess Championship. Eugene Martinovsky, Richard Verber, and Craig Chellstorp were also extremely strong players (distinguished Senior Masters, i.e. with ratings above 2400) from Chicago. None of those players ever became an IM or GM - and that is very, very far from an exhaustive list of strong players who did not attain those titles. Krakatoa (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2009 (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.