Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Hyatt


 * 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. Geschichte (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Robert Hyatt

 * – ( View AfD View log )

It seems clear that the subject, an associate professor, doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC, and I can't find any substantial information about him sufficient to meet WP:GNG - only an occasional trivial mention in the context of one of his programs. Useful information (if any) may be merged into Crafty and/or Cray Blitz. But a separate article about him is unwarranted in light of the dearth of reliable sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Seems to fail NPROF and NBIO. Gscholar has many citations for RE Hyatt but that doesn't seem to be the same person (RE Hyatt is a medical researcher and the subject is a computer scientist). Ping me if better sources are found. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The associate professor rank is totally irrelevant, but his citation record is probably not enough for WP:PROF. However, as an author of both Crafty and Cray Blitz and as a very well known chess programmer, I believe he passes WP:CREATIVE #1 ("regarded as an important figure"), #2 ("known for originating a significant new concept", in this case rotated bitboards, a major feature of both programs), #3 ("created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work", namely Crafty and Cray Blitz; note that Cray Blitz is the subject of multiple publications by people who were independent from its creation including "Cray Blitz and Hitech: Parallel Search and Parallel Evaluation", Newborn, 1997, and "Cray Blitz-A Computer Chess Playing Program", Marsland, 1985, as well as many news pieces about its individual performances such as in the NYT; Crafty is not as heavily covered by independent sources but there exists at least "Performance Characterization of Parallel Game-tree Search Application Crafty" by Ying et al, and "Tuning evaluation functions by maximizing concordance", Gomboc, 2005), and plausibly #4 ("been a substantial part of a significant exhibition", namely the participation of these programs in major computer chess competitions). If he had only one notable program a merge might have made sense per WP:BIO1E but not when there are two. This seems part and parcel with the recent Articles for deletion/International Computer Games Association (successful) and Articles for deletion/ICGA Journal (unsuccessful) as an effort to erase from Wikipedia the history of computer chess, a significant subject with a significant history. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as per WP:CREATIVE argument. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep also as per WP:CREATIVE. Added a Google Scholar Profile to his page if that helps. More links will need to be added. Will have a look.HistoricalAccountings (talk) 12:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC) Update: Added more links/books.HistoricalAccountings (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the WP:CREATIVE case is good. A couple biographical claims need better referencing, but that's a matter for ordinary editing. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with others above that WP:CREATIVE seems reasonable. It doesn't hurt that his programs won the World Computer Chess Championships in the 1980s. I helped tidy the article a bit and updated the Wikidata entry. TJMSmith (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2021 (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.