Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reinhard Scharnagl


 * 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.  Sandstein  06:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Reinhard Scharnagl

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article about Reinhard Scharnagl largely written by User:Scharnagl, and User:Scharnagl has more or less the same text (but in German) on his German use page (de:User:Scharnagl), implying that the article was written by the person himself. Looks like self-promotion and the person might not be notable. Only one source listed and that source is written by the person himself. I don't understand all of the text, but it seems that the page was deleted from the article namespace on German Wikipedia because of self-promotion and lack of notability: de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/29. November 2005 Stefan2 (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Per the 2005 de discussion. Does not meet WP:GNG.  (there is a german review of his book  on a german chess site, but I don't think that's sufficient.)--Milowent • hasspoken  03:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - just not seeing (or finding) any evidence of notability. Eddie.willers (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete for reasons of the nominator. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:RS. Obviously just a non-notable guy writing an article about himself. WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:SPAM, etc.Qworty (talk) 06:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * &bull; WP:AUTHOR is satisfied if "2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." (See below re Chess960 numbering scheme.)
 * &bull; WP:BIO (WP:Notability (people)) and WP:N are both re notability. Is Schanagl's Chess960 numbering scheme (see below) not "worthy of notice" that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."?
 * &bull; WP:RS (See below articles at ChessBase.com and Chess Variants Pages.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * For Capablanca Random Chess, he did what Fischer (and others) did for chess and applied it to Capablanca chess. That took less than 1 minute of thought.  As for as the chess960 numbering scheme, any math undergraduate could come up with something like that in 10 minutes, in my opinion. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's what Christian Freeling, an established game inventor, said about creating Dameo, a game he believes and advocates as more deserving as the basic competitive "checkers" game, to replace International draughts: "That is why Dameo happened, quite unintentionally. Its rules fell into place in less than a minute." Abstract Games (Summer 2002), p. 10. Also, his game Hexdame, was a straightforward and literal translation of International draughts rules, from the 10x10 board and onto a hex board. (How much time did that inspiration consume? Probably less than one second. Yet the game is a place for draughts to go to escape what the inventor predicts to be the death of competetive International draughts due to high incident of draws and played-out positions.) It is easy to say something was easy that anybody could have done, when there is advantage of hindsight and a rear-view mirror. Is a game more notable simply because the inventor sweated over it over a longer period of time? I don't think wall-clock time or sweat-equity are reliable gauges to reject notability. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Question – Doesn't this achievement alone render at least one but significant slice of notability (from Chess960 numbering scheme)?: "This mapping of starting arrays and numbers stems from Reinhard Scharnagl and is now used worldwide for Chess960." Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * &bull; Another achievement to consider lending notability (from Capablanca random chess): winner, game invention contest, The Chess Variant Pages (2005).
 * &bull; And this 5/5/2005 Chessbase.com article references Scharnagl and his program Smirf: Chess960 Computer World Champtionship.
 * &bull; The de WP decision is the de decision, it shouldn't weigh in on the en WP decision, which should be objective and independent (until such time WP is all-world consensus). Because de WP is German and Scharnagl is German too, it is still individual person(s) rendering assessment re notability (and/or whatever) at de. Why can't the en assessment be *better than* the de assessment? (And in the event of Keep at en, is it impossible that the editors(s) at de would reconsider? [And why not?]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * &bull; (One more thing.) If it concerns !voters that the current article is majorly written by the subject and is thus NPOV, I promise to rewrite it NPOV if the article is Kept! Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2012 (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.