Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiger Lilov


 * 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. I'm going to snow this as the ration of heat vs light is no longer optimal. I have discarded the votes of all spas and gone solely on the views expressed by established editors who appear to have no axe to grind. Spartaz Humbug! 06:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Tiger Lilov

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats ) * AFD1 - closed as deleted * AFD2 - closed as a delete * DRV1 - closed as  endorsed *DRV2 - closed since this AFD was ongoing *[AFC]

Absolutely non-notable, no significant accomplishments, no coverage in mainstream media. The subject is the same as Valeri Lilov, whose article has been AFD'ed twice now, and is protected from re-creation. It is clear that Lilov is a publicity hound that views Wikipedia as his own personal facebook. Delete, not notable, vanity page. Speiss67 (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC) His notability stems from his role as a teacher on Chess.com and ChessBase. He makes many teaching videos that are quite popular. Note: I despise his videos--his English is poor, he uses Valleyspeak, his explanation of positional concepts lead me to doubt his skill. Nonetheless, my personal distaste and low opinion of his capabilities as a teacher does not alter that fact that he is very active and quite popular. He is notable as a teacher, if not as a player.JStripes (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, International Master not sufficient notability in itself. --Soman (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete
 * 1) was deleted twice before, see Articles for deletion/Valeri Lilov (2nd nomination) and Articles for deletion/Valeri Lilov.
 * 2) Usually a player needs to be a grandmaster to have an article and he has the lower title of international master
 * 3) here is his FIDE page.  His rating has been flat for a couple of years, showing that he hasn't improved since the article was deleted the last time.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion is that the page be kept, however, the content need to be edited to reflect the neutrality expected of Wiki article. I support all the points alluded by MaxBrowne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtweb1 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep but edit. Many International Masters have wiki pages, so do some players with no FIDE title at all who are more notable as chess coaches or authors than as players (e.g. Dan Heisman). People find his penchant for self-publicity annoying, I understand that, but provided his page is edited so that it doesn't read like an ad, I don't see why he shouldn't have a page. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. The problem here is if you actually take a look at the "wall of sources" you notice it's all self promotion, or meaningless links to internet chess servers. There is not a single reliable source in the bunch. Fishface gurl (talk) 05:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep but edit
 * has no other edits than this AfD vote. --Soman (talk) 07:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Re-creating an article to get around a protected title is really poor form, and besides that it doesn't really look like he's any more notable now than last time he was deleted. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * His rating has been pretty much flat for 5 years. In Oct 2008 it was 2433 - now it is 2434.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

This is talking facts here. I am new to wiki editing. I didn't know how to contribute to the editing discussion. Editing the other person's comments was a mistake due to not knowing how to make a contribution to the conversation. I am certainly not a supporter of Lilov, and I have tried to remove some ridiculous claims, like he is 'renowned' and other ridiculousness. As I am new to editing on here, I only have contributions to two chess personalities. Please do not close or block my account. I have been warned, and I will be more careful about whether I know what I'm doing or not on here. Is there a place where a person can ask questions on how to edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talkingfacts (talk • contribs) 20:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment, (with solely 5 edits, 3 of them related to Lilov/Ivanov...) edited the comments of another user. This smells sock-puppeting. Can we get a speedy close and a block of the COI/SPA-account? --Soman (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Common courtesy surely dictates that you don't alter other people's comments, even if Speiss67 was arguably in violation of wikipedia guidelines (see WP:VAIN). MaxBrowne (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I already wrote that it was a mistake: I didn't realize I was altering someone else's comments. I edited out the word 'absolutely' because I thought it was an exaggeration; 'absolutely not notable' is not true for just about anything; as soon as we note it, it is notable. And I altered the repetition of that, and the allegation that Lilov was using wiki as his facebook page; which I thought was an issue of interpretation. Again, I didn't realize that I was editing someone's comments, I just thought I was improving some text. Drop it. Talkingfacts (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just to clarify, I insinuated a block for, who has repeatedly tried to recreate a fanpage for himself. --Soman (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree for an indefinite block of . Apparently now Lilov (Chesszorro) has been using his platform on "Chess.com" to whip up support for his Wikipedia article and is trying to mobilize his fans to invade Wikipedia to argue for keeping this article. Fishface gurl (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Aha, that explains the sudden appearance of new accounts. Anyhow, that's a clear WP:CANVASS case. --Soman (talk) 22:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: It is interesting to compare the different wikis. The English wiki has 35 players in Category:Bulgarian chess players, the Bulgarian wiki has 100, the Russian has 54, the German has 27, and the Polish has 67. All of these wikis have excellent chess coverage and I refer to them when writing new articles. It's notable that not a single one of them includes an article on Lilov. So I'm coming around to the view that the article should be deleted. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. He's more notable now than he was during the last AfD, but in the absence of significant competitive results in junior chess or at the Bulgarian championship, I don't think an entry on him is justified. Cobblet (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable enough for Wikipedia. MrsHudson (talk) 08:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Arguments to keep: Lilov is (subjective opinion) comparably famous to other chess coaches in the chess coaching sites, including the best names on those sites producing videos or DVDs. However it is hard to put this objectively, as many other "famous" coaches would also be eg Grandmasters (which qualifies them for Wiki articles, although they aren't known much or famous for that). He was also one of the leading individuals regarding outing Borislav Ivanov as a cheater (for which there is also a delete discussion, but seems the outcome would be "keep"). On the other hand Lilov's actions show that he is apparently unaware of Wikipedia policies and practices which is an issue by itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:FE00:BFFE:2201:0:0:0:300 (talk) 08:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your last sentence is interesting. It sounds like Lilov is trying to get an article about himself on Wikipedia.  That is hardly a good argument to keep the article.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This was already suggested by several users, e.g. by Fishface_gurl here Articles_for_deletion/Borislav_Ivanov, however user Chesszorro rejects this association below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourtytwoplus (talk • contribs) 21:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: I noticed that some people in this debate relate to me as Valeri Lilov which is false. I can legitimate myself via passport or in some other ways if necessary. I don't even know the man personally, though he is from my country and is very famous locally and on the Internet. I have only updated and added some corrections to his old Wikipedia page which was apperantly deleted when he wasn't so popular in 2010. Since his page has been protected from creation in that year, I have posted the article online using his most common nickname, following a suggestion by a few legit Wikipedia editors. The cheating case involving Borislav Ivanov have nothing to do with this AfD and it is strange that there are so many hateful messages on my talk page from people who are obvious supporters of Ivanov, sending a negative vote here, while they vote 'Keep' on his own AfD. I believe this is not quite according to the Wikipedia rules for neutrality. Once again, I have nothing to do with Lilov and I only created the page after he was officially awarded with the International Master title in October 2013. I would suggest people who come here and comment to leave some solid explanation next to their vote, instead of voting on Borislav Ivanov's AfD right away. Chesszorro (talk) 12:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Have you made a single edit not related to neither Lilov nor Ivanov? It's highly unlikely that someone not in COI situation would do that. Also, do note the difference in character between the Lilov and Ivanov articles. The Lilov article is promotional, whilst the Ivanov article covers a lot of negative details about the person. If I was Ivanov, I'd like that article deleted. --Soman (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I haven't made other edits, as I believe that most notable Bulgarian chess players already have Wikipedia pages. Eveyone, except Lilov. This is the reason why I made some minor updated to the already existing article after he got the International Master title. If there is someone with more experience, he can add some more references to the Ivanov cheating scandal and other information in press to update Lilov's current article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesszorro (talk • contribs) 14:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. No significant coverage of article subject in independent, reliable sources. Sasata (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete article deleted twice already, notability not established, no coverage in independent, reliable sources.   Credentials as a chess player not sufficient on their own. --SubSeven (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep but edit Valeri Lilov is notable in the context of the Borislav Ivanov cheating scandal. There was/is open "war" between both in the press, youtube, and in the biggest Bulgarian chess and English anti-cheating facebook groups, thus one might argue they are similarly notable in the context of the cheating scandal. Fourtytwoplus (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * only one other edit than this AfD vote, concerning a Bulgarian talk show on which Borislav Ivanov was a guest recently. Possible SPI or sockpuppet. Fishface gurl (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment It seems to me that a respondent not having edits except for a single subject is not proof of COI or sockpuppet. They, like me, could be new to wikiediting; or they could have a very narrow interest, as in the chesszorro person, who claims to have an interest only in Bulgarian chess, which is possible. So I don't think you should be rejecting people's argument's on the slightly paranoid assessment of them as 'possible COI-SPI'. Talkingfacts (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC) I don't know if my signature got in here so, this is 'talkingfacts'.
 * Delete in Strongest Possible Terms. Valeri Lilov is a non-entity, non-notable, fails Wikipedia notability guidelines in any way. His persistent sockpuppetting and campaigning for an article is horrifying and immature.  Delete, and block re-creation of every possible permutation of Valeri Lilov's name.  Also you should do an SPI on Chesszorro, Talkingfacts, and all the other random "new" editors who have weighed in.  The last AFD on Lilov also had multiple confirmed sockpuppets.  It's kind of ridiculous that someone that thinks of himself as a master sportsman would engage in such persistent and obvious sockpupetting like a bored 12 year old.  What is even worse is he is using Chess.com to encourage vandalism and drive-by voting here. Bulgarian Chess Dude (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet vote stricken. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Do an SPI on me in a heartbeat. I am on the Ivanov Afd comments page as putting forward the strongest argument for keeping the Ivanov page. Some COI sockpuppet I am!! Some dupe of Lilov I am!!Talkingfacts (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment This so-called 'Bulgarian Chess Dude' is a "random new editor" to quote him, and a likely sockpuppet, with no edit history, and troll vitriole, as noted below by Rtweb1. Talkingfacts (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Delete, Non notable.  Salt re-creation.  Thomas Hauser41 (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. The amount of strong negative emotion and obsession against the creation of the Lilov page is quite interesting to observe. Any person making an attempt to present a sober and objective view is attacked and called names. A characteristic typical of trolls. Of all the negative votes, none is sound compelling reason why the page should be completely deleted. Just for information, my account is not 2 days or 2 months old on Wiki, and I am a long standing Wiki Foundation Donor. An even more disappointing observation is the type of bias displayed by people who are supposed to be withholding the values that Wikipedia stand for. The Wiki Foundation Director Sue Gardner says: "Wikipedia isn't meant to advance somebody's PR agenda or push a particular ideology, or persuade you to believe something that is not true." None of the review comments subscribe to that ethos - moreso if you observe certain interesting coincidences.--Rtweb1 (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Response. What part of "No significant coverage of article subject in independent, reliable sources" is too hard for you to understand? Do you want it translated into Bulgarian?  Come back when you are a grandmaster, then you can have an article on here.  Since having a Wikipedia article seems to be your main preoccupation in life (next to Borislav Ivanov), that should give you some motivation to make GM, right?  Fishface gurl (talk) 00:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Response. Fishface gurl. Firstly, let me clarify - I am not Bulgarian, therefore, you do not need to translate anything to Bulgarian for me. I speak Afrikaans. Your arguments are lacking in content and balance. If you, Fishface gurl, cared so much about "significant coverage in independent, reliable sources"; how about all the other International masters who have little info on their pages (examples: [], [], etc.).--Rtweb1 (talk) 07:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Rtweb1 user contributions. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The article has now been edited down to verifiable claims, dead links removed etc and it's looking rather skinny now. Maybe IM title and positive reviews of his DVD's on the credible chesscafe website are enough to establish notability? MaxBrowne (talk) 02:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Response. Probably not, but we'll see. It will furthermore be interesting to see how long it takes the Lilov sockpuppet army to re-add several thousand bytes of puffery to the article. Fishface gurl (talk) 02:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Not impressed with the behaviour of the participants on either side of the debate. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet the requirement of WP:GNG. 88.104.25.210 (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I move for an early close of this. The consensus is clear, Delete. Fishface gurl (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Tentative keep: I get the impression that he could be considered notable in chess circles (mainly because of his teaching credentials and the various videos posted on chessbase) and seems to be improving as a player as well (it's not out of the question that he could attain a GM norm). In my opinion Lilov could be considered a borderline case. His exact involvement in the Borislav Ivanov saga needs to be clarified. I am not sure whether the creator of his article is in a conflict of interest situation due to a close association with Lilov, but this may be worth looking into. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.85.7.102 (talk) 07:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Yes, it reads much more soberly now; better, in my opinion. Thank you MaxBrowne.

I hesitate to add to his bio his involvement in the Ivanov scandal, because I have no way of evaluating how important his videos about Ivanov's cheating are to the scandal itself. His videos about Ivanov are embedded in a chessbase news article, and are possibly embedded there by chessbase to help market his instructional videos which are published and sold by chessbase. Lilov's videos about Ivanov have certainly played a role in popularizing the scandal via youtube, and they are interesting and instructive, but I don't think they have brought any new evidence into the discussion of Ivanov's cheating. In my humble opinion, I think Lilov's videos about Ivanov's cheating are derivative, i.e. based on the work of others. (and note, I differentiate between his videos about Ivanov's cheating, which I have seen, and his commercial instructional videos, which people say good things about on chess.com, but as I have not purchased any I have no comment about them nor any way of evaluating them. Also, in and of itself, I don't think having a few instructional videos for sale makes a chess professional notable. However, perhaps the entire corpus of his work including his recent attainment of IM status and his secondary role in the Ivanov scandal, makes him notable, though not exceptional.).

Lilov has come into the public eye as a result of his marketing of his instructional videos, by way of his instructional material on chess.com, by way of chessbase marketing his videos, and by way of his videos popularizing the Ivanov scandal. He has not come into the public eye (except perhaps in Bulgaria, which I have no way of evaluating) as a result of his professional chessplaying which, in and of itself, is not a reason to delete his bio.

My sense is that if his bio is determined to be notable, then perhaps the fact that he played a secondary role in the Ivanov scandal may be included in his bio. I will leave it up to the rest of the wiki community to ascertain whether Lilov's videos analyzing Ivanov's cheating add to his notability, and/or whether they should be included in his bio. Sorry for the long-windedness. I hope this helps.Talkingfacts (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Response. Ok, very well said.  So, go to where this information may belong better, on the Borislav Ivanov page.  Enter in a sentence on that page to the effect that "Val Tiger Lilov has done a few Youtube videos concerning the Ivanov scandal."  Cite whatever sources you can find.  Good luck with that. Fishface gurl (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go. http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211/PostId/4009251/a-game-of-chicken-ivanov-rides-again-230313.aspx and http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/more-on-the-alleged-cheating-case-at-the-zadar-open. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 22:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Response. Fishfacegurl, I'd rather not touch either of those pages for the time being; I'd rather let the more experienced editors work on the text of the bios while their inclusion is being disputed, and I'll leave my comments here on the talk pages. I've already made one blooper in the past few days (edited someone else's comments by mistake, looking like vandalism) and I'm still a bit reluctant to get back into the thick of it with editing actual text. Talkingfacts (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: The ChessBase News link has the following author's credit: "Alex Karaivanov is the manager of FM Valeri Lilov and has managed his coaching career and chess training business for the past six years. He is also involve in producing Valeri Lilov's ChessBase DVDs.". Is there any coverage that is a 3rd party source and isn't an online chess forum/blog? --Soman (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. News of note: Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations Fishface gurl (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt. Not notable. Double sharp (talk) 05:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment fishface gurlfishface gurl has sent me a private message via the wiki messaging service confirming his identity (not a gurl, btw) as an anti-Lilov sock puppet who has been active on chess.com, under at least three separate names, and whose accounts have been closed on chess.com as of this evening. You can take this to heart when you look at fishface gurl's pushy insistence that the issue get "closed immediately" "speedy deletion", and the name calling he was doing. I don't know how to do this, but fishface gurl and his different aliases, which look to include Speiss67, Thomas Hauser41, and Bulgarian Chess Dude. I am quite certain these are one and the same person. Please track or ban or do whatever you can do. There is some suggestion that this person has been banned before, with the name Wiki brahWiki brah, thanks to the help of Toccata quarta Talkingfacts (talk) 06:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC).


 * You probably need to see Sockpuppet investigations. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Response. Talkingfacts, Thank you for the information you shared with the community about this rude user - Fishface gurl. You have confirmed certain suspicions that were here. At first I thought it is Ivanov's girlfriend, a troll, or some lonely bored pimple-faced teenager looking for attention.--Rtweb1 (talk) 09:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Response. You mean this? Cf. this?  It's all public information you posted on the internet, none of this is "private" to you.  And why must all this Chess.com drama always spill over to other sites on a regular basis?  More importantly, is any of this whinging going to make Lilov any more notable re: reliable sources?  Fishface gurl (talk) 06:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * ResponseNope, none of that was public, that was private message you sent to me, which outs you, as you full-well know. And why is this important? You are in violation of the proud principles on which wikipedia was founded, and which has an army of volunteers working to make it work, and I have just become one of their volunteers . I recruited myself to defend wikipedia from the likes of you.Talkingfacts (talk) 06:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Response. I see, interesting rhetoric.  In any case, as a noble Wikipedian volunteer, you should know that your "talk page" where I sent you that message, here User_talk:Talkingfacts is public.  It's not a "private" message, nor is your raving about putting the chess set into production on that other site you came from.  Welcome to Wikipedia though.  Fishface gurl (talk) 07:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Response Welcome to civic minded democracy, common decency, and sociability. It, like chess, will take committment and much practice. Talkingfacts (talk) 07:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, cool, well, we're all glad to have you here on Wikipedia. If you are interested in contributing to AFD discussions like this you should read WP:GNG and its sub pages as well as WP:RS and WP:V.  If you have any questions about how Wikipedia works you can go to WP:RD/M (reference desk/miscellany) or WP:VPP (Village Pump/Policy).  There are very helpful people here that will be glad to help.  Or, you can edit articles. Fishface gurl (talk) 07:20, 20 October 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.