Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Karagianis


 * 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. JForget 00:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Pete Karagianis

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No notability found. SunCreator (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC) "He is the current editor of the Illinois Chess Bulletin, the North American Chess Review and also has created his own magazine, the underground_review."
 * Delete. Main claim to notability appears to be Iowa Chess Championship, but a look at the 2009 crosstable shows that there were no players above 2300 in that section, and the 2003 event had no players over 2100. Winning the Iowa Chess Championship is a good achievement, but five-round weekend tournaments do not rank it among the most prestigious tournaments in the United States. While Grandmasters (~2500+) are generally kept, we have occasionally deleted player bios on International Masters and usually deleted those on FIDE masters as well. Mr Karagianis does not hold any such distinction, even though a 2200+ rating is master strength. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I was wondering when someone was going to nominate this article. Plainly non-notable. We have deleted articles on chessplayers who came considerably closer to notability, such as Boris Baczynskj (sp?) and Charles Weldon. Karagianis is not notable as a player: there are tens of thousands of higher-rated players in the world. He apparently doesn't even hold the FIDE Master title (unlike Baczynskj and Weldon), let alone the higher International Master or Grandmaster title. Nor is his writing significant enough to make him notable. Krakatoa (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As the others have said. Accomplishments and journalism are only state-level.  Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 14:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This information, at the end of the article, doesn't appear to be current:
 * I don't see anything on the first two sites indicating that Karagianis is the current editor of either of the named publications, or indeed anything indicating that either publication still exists. The Illinois Chess website has a banner at the top indicating that it is for sale - not a good sign. The last link goes to a pretty rudimentary chess website that Karagianis has created - it doesn't look like much of a magazine. The title of a recent (September 8) blog entry indicates that it is the first entry in 15 months. The first sentence in the post is, "Wow. I never thought I would allow my blog to 'die' for this long." Krakatoa (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. He is not a good enough player to deserve mention on wikipedia.  Also, his writing and website do not seem all that notable. GrandMattster 20:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. But he's higher-rated than Kayden Troff, who you think should not only have a Wikipedia article, but be Mid-Importance. :-) Krakatoa (talk) 11:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But not as young as Troff. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. That's why I agree that Troff merits inclusion and Karagianis doesn't. I was just giving GrandMattster grief. Krakatoa (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I need grief.  :)  But yeah, Kayden's youth gives him more notability than whats-his-face.  Also, there's his potential to think of (which, I suppose, kind of goes with his youth).  I doubt Pete will be going anywhere spectacular with his chess career, but Kayden's ambitions speak for him... GrandMattster 15:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and by the way, Pete is no longer higher rated than Kayden. Kayden recently rose to 2215 (FIDE) and Pete is at 2203. GrandMattster 15:51, 3 November 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.