Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have beaten Paul Morphy in chess


 * 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 all except List of people who have beaten José Raúl Capablanca in chess, which was not tagged for deletion and therefore its readers did not have a fair chance to debate the matter. Stifle (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

List of people who have beaten Paul Morphy in chess

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Quoting myself: "Non-notable cruft. There is no reason to catalog every single loss that occurred during his career, only the notable ones, which probably are already mentioned at his own article." Also I'm going to bundle

Beerest355 Talk 00:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not made my mind up on Alekhine and Lasker, but definite Keep on the Capablanca article since there is a book devoted to collecting his losses Capablancas samtliga förlustpartier, it is written in Swedish and rather old, but it is direct non-trivial coverage on the subject matter, and therefore it passes WP:GNG. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * GNG usually requires multiple reliable sources. I just want to make this point because this is the third "people who beat X in chess" AfD in which a single book on the subject is being presented as definitive evidence of notability. Notability standards are just as high for lists as for regular articles. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Capablanca's remarkably short list of losses has been covered in multiple sources. My mentioning that a whole book has been written about it is basically to underscore that. But a search for "Capablanca loss" at Google Books will reveal other places where the difficulty in beating Capablanca is covered, e.g. Twelve Great Chess Players and Their Best Games  . Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But there is already an article where the difficulty in beating Capablanca is covered: José Raúl Capablanca Borock (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete all except Capablanca per nom; neutral on Capablanca. I'm not convinced that there are multiple reliable sources discussing all of these losses as a general set, though I can't see the above link so I can't be sure. Ansh666 20:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 11:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with Ansh666 - While the others are definitely not notable enough, Capablanca does have a few sources to it, although I'm not sure if the amount that there is really helps. ö   Brambleberry   of   RiverClan  14:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete All If a person is notable as a chess player it almost goes without saying that he/she is hard to beat. If only a few other players have done it by all means list them within the article on the person.  A separate list seems to be an artifical construct, that is WP:Original research.  The fact that in one case a clever author came up with the idea first and made it into a book does not change that. Borock (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The second sentence of the policy that you cited says: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." In this case the "no reliable, published sources exist" criterion is patently not true. When the content of the article can be easily sourced to a book covering the subject directly, it is no longer original research (disallowed) but simply research (allowed and encouraged). Sjakkalle (Check!)  19:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No one is disagreeing with the facts presented in these articles. It's the form that is original.  It's kind of like the photo books "24 hours in..." We would not have an article "Events in such and such a place on such and such a date." Borock (talk) 02:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete all except Capablanca, seeing as only that article seems to pass GNG.  069952497a  (U-T-C-E) 19:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sufficiently filled with blue links to be worthwhile, however, this is poorly organised. Merge to Paul_Morphy and spin out Paul's chess games specific stuff to a separate article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but lots of blue links isn't enough to keep. Check these recent AfDs for similar articles that recently closed as delete. Beerest355 Talk 23:21, 23 July 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.