Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murugan Thiruchelvam


 * 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) czar   &middot;   &middot;  14:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Murugan Thiruchelvam

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

He was a prodigy once, but not anymore. Shame. Do prodigies even get included just because they're good for their age? One reference to article from 11 years ago. Mendoza2909 (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - we need a moratorium on sarcastic AfDs on UK chess players while OGBraniff/Wikibrah is still active, and Mendoza2909, normally editors build up a history of contributing to articles instead of, as brand new users, throwing themselves straight into deleting them. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned that matter is closed. Please can you provide a more cogent reason for keeping this article. No AfD is under discussion but this one. If you believe that this AfD is just a waste of time then I'm sure there will be consequences for me. Thanks. Mendoza2909 (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete -- He did well briefly, presumably as an amateur, but no longer plays. Surely NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. NN, fails GNG. This man is no "Mr. Belvedere." Brocktoon Belvedere (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note Brocktoon Belvedere has been blocked indefinitely. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. No valid debate to be had while there are obvious socks of banned editor involved. Brittle heaven (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree that the chess WikiProject has been trolled by socks or gangs (aka "meatpuppets") since we deleted the Chess.com article. Anyway, regarding the subject of this article, I found this article from the Birmingham Evening Mail that appears to be largely about Mr. Thiruchelvam, and combined with the ChessBase reference, GNG does seem to be met. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree, using a comment from DGG in the Peter Lalic debate 'we have normally been very reluctant to accept notability on the basis of being a prodigy-- at having attained a respectable level but not one which would have qualified an adult for an article...It would be a significant change in our interpretation of notability in many areas, and I am pretty sure there would not be consensus at this time to broaden it to that extent'. If we are to follow this thinking (but you may disagree!), then this player has reached a respectable level, but has not reached FM standard (2300), which should be an absolutely minimum standard for notability for modern chess players. There are a lot of socks, but to be fair that doesn't necessarily mean an article is not a good candidate for deletion. Mendoza2909 (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not quote selectively from my comment. I also said about youth notability "I could probably make a good case for doing otherwise, and accepting such notability, and similarly with youth awards and youth competitions of all sorts, and in fact I tried doing so when I came here 6 years ago. I didn't get anywhere then, and I doubt I would get anywhere now"  I therefore gave a comment only at that AfD, not a delete--but certainly not a keep either.   DGG ( talk ) 16:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  16:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, no policy-based argument for deletion made by the nom, whom is almost certainly a sock of an indeffed user anyway. One of the previous Delete voters was also indeffed as a sock. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - No valid reason for an AfD was provided by the nominator and the article could be easily improved. Julius Caesar was an Consul-prodigy once, but no more nowadays. Shame. Do Consuls even get included in Wikipedia just because they were good for their age? Few reference to proses from 2000 years ago!, sorry for the gratuitous sarcasm, but now you can clearly see the fallacies of the nominator's logic. Toffanin (talk) 18:04, 29 April 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.