Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mig Greengard


 * 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. Certainly a close case per Sjakkalle, but the community's consensus is clear. With more mainstream press sources, consensus would very likely change. Xoloz 16:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Mig Greengard

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A guy who has a website. His site, chessninja.com, has an Alexa ranking of 268,939 and fails WP:WEB. He himself fails WP:BIO: the article does not claim notability and I can find no coverage of Greengard by independent, reputable secondary sources. Skarioffszky 17:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Jonjonb  t  17:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete no assertation of notability based on the article. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - where do we stop with self promotion if we allow this to stand? He's looking for traffic.  ● F arenhorst   18:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, clearly meets A7.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 19:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no notability SyG 19:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Do not speedy. The person has some non-trivial mentions about him in the publication New in Chess (See story here), and he is a regular chess columnist on the fairly large site Chess Cafe, and received a nomination for Chess Journalist of the Year . Enough? Not sure, in my opinion writing well about chess does not confer the same notability as becoming a grandmaster or winning a championship, but there is enough merit to warrant some discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - thanks for pointing out that Chess Journalist of the Year nomination, Sjakkalle. Before I nominated the page for deletion I searched a bit for coverage of Greengard by independent sources but I must have missed that one. As for the New in Chess article, I'm not completely sure I would describe an interview that opens with "What is your favorite color?" and follows up with "What is your favorite kind of food?" as "non-trivial"... Skarioffszky 10:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, most people who wind up interviewed on the back cover of New in Chess are notable, although being interviewed by them does not really make a person notable. (They don't get notable from being interviewed, they are interviewed because they are notable.) To be fair, the interview does ask a more chess-related question like "What is the best chess game you played?", but I'll grant you that the interview is too laid-back and informal to be even a moderately serious source. (But I have a soft spot for that interview because Magnus Carlsen mentioned yours truly as the "most original" chess player he had ever seen in another interview of the same publication...) Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You should not say things like that on the Internet, because it just made me rush onto my pile of New in Chess looking frantically for the issue with Carlsen, and now I know your name! Big Brother is watching you :-) Anyway, applause for having impressed a future world champion! SyG 12:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * VERY VERY STRONG KEEP I am speaking here as an avid chess fan, and I have to assure you, Mig Greenard is a VERY very well known chess journalist, being personal friends with Garry Kasparov. His blog on chess is also quite well known among chess fans. He is definitely a notable person. -- ¿Exir? ¡Kamalabadi!  03:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I am an avid chess fan as well, so I would agree with Sjakkalle and Exir Kamalabadi that Mig is a journalist well-known among chess competitors, that he is personal friend with Kasparov and that he has a blog. Does it make him notable ? Maybe it is just a matter of taste but for me, sorry guys, it does not. SyG 08:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete somewhat well known in the chess world, but not the subject of nontrivial coverage from reliable mainstream sources. Eleland 22:52, 24 August 2007 (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.