Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Hopkins (chess player)


 * 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. Michig (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Richard Hopkins (chess player)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to be a WP:HOAX. The creator listed two RS references (Eales, p. 185-186 and Sunnucks, p.310), but Hopkins is not mentioned on those pages -- in fact, the name is not mentioned anywhere in those books. Or any other chess encyclopedia that I checked. Online and WorldCat searches found no evidence of the existence of the other 4 reference titles nor their authors. They appear to be fake. The creator's history of changes to names and dates in the article, and odd entries like these quotes suggests the article is a joke. (Note: the companion Ruy Lopez, Hopkins Gambit article also lists references which are unfounded -- but there may be an actual footnote about it at C77 in the ECO. So I am not yet listing that article for deletion as a hoax until that can be checked, although, at best, it's probably non-notable.) — Cactus Writer (talk) 01:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Update: Related article listed at Articles for deletion/Ruy Lopez, Hopkins Gambit. — Cactus Writer (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * What's not to believe?. But, but, but ... How could it not be true?! There's even a photo of the subject's signature! (The edit sum by the article author when adding that photo image: "signa turd" .) Let's see we have: 1) Hopkins owned George Washington's chessboard, 2) Hopkins is believed to have played Theodore Roosevelt a game of chess, 3) Hopkins was observed as if walking on water and no one to this day knows the secret how he did so, and 4) Hopkins amassed a financial fortune which is now a hidden [presumably buried] treasure, with only a family member having the secret code giving instructions to finding it. And I love these inconsistencies: 1) first he was a "Catholic priest", then a "Baptist minister", 2) first he was "shot twice in the left leg", then "shot in both legs", 3) first he "tripped" on his bathtub to his death, then he was "discovered" dead in the bathtub. The author has even taken care to wrap the subject in complete mystique, with hearsay accounts of his existence only, and finally even taking measures to get rid of the body, even to the extent of "cremating [his] ashes" . IMO the author-editor should be banned from WP, or at a minimum indefinitely blocked. (Can someone please explain why that wouldn't be warranted and appropriate? I know that isn't the venue here, but hey! Thanks.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ECO Vol C (2nd ed., 1981) has no mention of "Hopkins" and only this footnote (C77, p. 356):"5.c4?! Bc5 6.Nc3 0-0 7.0-0 d6 8.Bxc6 bxc6 9.d4 exd4 10.Nxd4 Bd7 =/+ Radkevič–Sumilin, SSSR 1937"ECO Vol C (3rd ed., 1997) dropped that line and 5.c4 doesn't show. Couldn't check 1st ed. ECO Vol C (I think I discarded that book since 2nd ed. dwarfed it). I checked some other books and couldn't find 5.c4 in any, including: The Ruy Lopez, Leonard Barden (1963, 1975 Pergamon reprint); MCO-12; BCO (1st ed., 1982); Oxford Companion (1st ed., 1987); Theory and Practice, Horowitz; The Complete Book of Gambits, Keene (1992). Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that research, Ihardlythinkso. Your findings confirm what I also found with the Oxford Companion -- and your check of the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings seals the deal. I will be listing Ruy Lopez, Hopkins Gambit for AFD as well. — Cactus Writer (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The first edition of ECO has the same note as the second edition. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as a hoax. I've checked Shang2's contributions (fortunately not extensive outside of this article). Those were minor vandalisms that have been reverted. It's quite likely that this person morphed into User:Shangmeister, but the latter's edits appear (at first glance anyway) to be unobjectionable. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Certainly delete. One notices Shang2's first edit (well, edits) on the Hopkins Gambit page, made roughly 4 months after it's conception.  It was quickly reverted as vandalism.  Shang2's other edits on the Gambit were simply to link the Richard Hopkins page (which he created) to the opening. Borjon22 (talk) 05:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as a hoax. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per nominator. Should be listed at WP:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator Cobblet (talk) 06:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. As if any further evidence was required at this point, there's no evidence that the Sturbgon Weekly has ever existed, or, indeed, any place named Sturbgon to have a weekly newspaper.  And other than the two actual sources (whose use here is a misrepresentation), WorldCat has no entry for any of the authors or works put forth as sources here.  Unequivocal hoax. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:52, 17 September 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.