Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Bardwick


 * 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. Kevin (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Todd Bardwick

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable to me. Sources given are all primary sources. No coverage in mainstream media. SyG (talk) 06:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep – Based on two factors. One, Mr. Bardwick has been the subject of numerous coverage by third party – creditable – verifiable – independent sources, as shown here . Two,  Mr. Bardwick has competed at the highest level of Competition, as the before mentioned references validated, so he qualifies under  Athletes. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 15:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Regarding your first point, the first, second, third, fifth, sixth, seventh, eight and ninth articles you cite are written by Bardwick, not written about Bardwick, so I do not see how it gives notability to Bardwick. The fourth article is from a local newspaper and talks about a local Simultaneous exhibition — nothing close to the requirements from Notability_(people). The tenth article is pay-per-view and the extract given does not cite Bardwick, so nothing can be useful from that.
 * Regarding your second point, I do not see anywhere a mention that he competed at the highest level of competition, be it professional or amateur. I have to admit my difficulties to find my way in the 213 sources you threw out randomly. Do you have a precise source mentioning that Bardwick competed in, say, the World Chess Championship or the Chess Olympiad ? SyG (talk) 09:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Chess is not covered by WP:ATHLETE. See . r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 19:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that User:Shoessss's statement about WP:ATHLETE is irrelevant, right ? SyG (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable. There is no indication in the article that he competed at the highest levels.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Ahhh, National Chess Master gives you a hint. Likewise,, did you read the articles from Denver Post – The Columbian – The Independent – Washington Post – Star Tribune – International Herald Tribune -  The Gazette – Chicago Sun-Times – The Record or Denver Post, just to name a few.  Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 17:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * National Chess Master is not even on Wikipedia, so it means nothing. To be notable you shall at leat be GM. National Chess Master is below Candidate Master which is below FIDE Master which is below IM which is below GM. See ? :-) SyG (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that the title had to be included in Wikipedia before it was considered notable. I thought the guidelines at Notability was our first criteria to look at.  Such as independent coverage, which I believe I have shown, or meeting one of the sub-categories, which I believe I have shown. Am I mistaken?  Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 18:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not all GMs have articles and IMs generally don't unless they are also a noted author or coach or something. Bubba73 (talk), 18:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And when we say the "highest levels of competition" we mean the strength of the opposition, not the altitude of the city (Denver). Bubba73 (talk), 19:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Again, I am sorry if I am misinterpreting you comments, BUT did you read my Keep opinion and the references I showed. If you happen to overlook, here they are again .  As you can see,  Mr. Bardwick has not only received local coverage, but International coverage from third party – creditable – verifiable – independent sources, in excess of 250+ articles.  If this does not meet our criteria for Notability here at Wikipedia, I am not sure what does then.  Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 19:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The ones I checked are articles he wrote for a local newspaper - not articles about him. Bubba73 (talk), 03:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - In the articles I referenced I did not include the Rocky Mountain News, which Mr. Bardwick is a contributing editor. However, if we take this into account,  Mr. Bardwick, could also be considered for inclusion here at Wikipedia under Creative professionals as he is looked upon as a ;”…a person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors“.  Thanks.   ShoesssS Talk 03:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Could you please cite a precise reference for that ? Do you have links where his peers or successors cite him ? SyG (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to say Delete here. The sources seem to validate Bardwick's competition at the state level, and presumably (since he did well) at the national level. However that does not satisfy WP:ATHLETE which requires play at major international competitions. In many of the articles about high-level competition from the reference above, Bardwick's name appears only as the author (and for a local paper). Arguably he is more notable as an author than a player. I reserve the right to change my view if more references can be found. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - How about this, which shows his games against Tony Miles as covered by The Independent or his games against  Nick de Firmian once again covered by the The Independent – Washington Post & Star Tribune  or possibly the coverage by the Rocky Mountain News of his play against Michael Mulyar as shown here .  Does that help.  Thanks ShoesssS Talk 19:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't get at the first article - registration required - but the second is coverage of the Colorado State touranment. That is not high enough competition to warrant a Wikipedia article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Play against Nick de Firmian does not constitute high enough competition. Do you want us to dig up Bobby Fisher :-). ShoesssS Talk 19:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not about who you play, it's about the level of the competition. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Are you saying that the level of competition has nothing to do with the individual you are playing against?  Is not the “competition” the other player, and that players competency, or lack of proficiency, influence the level of competition?  Or am I just being dumb today. :-) ShoesssS Talk 20:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the level at which the competition is organized. If a player happened to live in the same county as a Grandmaster they might play against that Grandmaster in the county championship. But they are still competing at the county level, not at the Grandmaster level. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The article says Michael Mulyar is an International Master, but FIDE does not list him. If he was an IM he should be listed by FIDE.  Bardwick is not listed as a member of FIDE so aparantly he has no international competition.  Bubba73 (talk), 20:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I could understand the delete opinion if Mr. Bardwick only competed against the hierarchy of the Chess world in a matchs set-up for local grandeur.  However, in looking through the articles I referenced above, I see him playing on a consistent bases as a prime competitor against the best in the world.  That, given with the two books he wrote, as a Chess expert along with the proliferation of articles, from 3rd party - creditable - verifiable and independent sources, in reference to Mr. Bardwick , I cannot understand why he is not already included here at Wikipedia.  Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 22:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * against the best in the world - FIDE shows no international competition for him. chessgames.com and ChessBase don't list any games either.  Bubba73 (talk), 22:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I guess I just have to assume than that the Denver Post – The Columbian – The Independent – Washington Post – Star Tribune – International Herald Tribune -  The Gazette – Chicago Sun-Times – The Record or Denver Post are misleading me. ShoesssS Talk 22:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: The U.S. Chess Championship also know as the America's Foundation for Chess also recommends Mr. Bardwick book "Chess Workbook for Children", as shown here, .  I would say that is pretty notable.  Thanks  ShoesssS Talk 00:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * America's Foundation for Chess is not the US chess championship. Bubba73 (talk), 00:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * AHHH - Yes it is. Didn't read the link I provided did you :-) ShoesssS Talk 00:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No it isn't. From "about" at their webpage: "America’s Foundation for Chess (AF4C) is committed to the education of our children. "  Bubba73 (talk), 01:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL - Still have not read the link have you? :-). ShoesssS Talk 02:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A St. Loius club sponsored the last US championsip, and they aren't the US Championship either. Bubba73 (talk), 02:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not realize a sponsor was the event. And for a third time, have you read the link I provided.  It is here on Wikipedia.  Either correct the article I referenced or Checkmate (Pun Intended :-)    ShoesssS Talk 03:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's right - the sponsor is not the event. But you said that the organization is the US Championship.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I read that link, and it says that America's Foundation for Chess - an educational group - recommends Todd Bardwick's book, among others. It says nothing about his level of play, and does not claim that AFC in any way "is" the US Chess Championship. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "…From 1999 to 2006, the Championship was sponsored and organized by the Seattle Chess Foundation (later renamed America's Foundation for Chess).’’ As shown here U.S. Chess Championship. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 18:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. They sponsored the event which is not the same thing as being the event.  That means they provided the location and logistics. And it also says "held under the auspices of the U.S. Chess Federation". Bubba73 (talk), 19:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but where does it say that? Have I overlooked it?  The link I provided, after checking and re-rechecking and re-re-checking does not say that.  Please provide a link.  Thanks .  ShoesssS Talk 20:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * U.S. Chess Championship. Bubba73 (talk), 20:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right (my aplogies)....but did you overlook to also include since 1936? That changes the dynamics of the meaning of the statement quite a bit, don't you think?  Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 21:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it changes it. It means from 1936 through the present. Bubba73 (talk), 03:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment.(ec)You keep repeating this list, but you haven't demonstrated that they contain the significant, non-trivial coverage that WP:N demands. Playing against GMS and IMs does not necessarily mean you are notable. Players such as Miles competed in weekend tournaments and local leagues because they loved playing chess at all different levels. It doesn't mean the opponents they encountered deserved Wikipedia articles. As DJ Clayowrth says, it's the level at which the competition is organised. Bardwick has not achieved big enough results in major events. Also, many many people write chess books and countless chess books are published every year. It doesn't mean all the authors are notable.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, if I am coming across as cantankerous. But has ANYONE looked at the references. TWO HUNDRED and EIGHTY-FIVE.  That is not trivial, by any stretch of the imagination.  Two, how many of those other authors are endorsed by the U.S. Chess Championship.  He has  three  Two books listed on the HOME PAGE, as I showed above. ShoesssS Talk 00:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Google hits don't really mean much. It's the quality of the coverage. It appears he has written two chess education titles, Teaching Chess in the 21st Century and the Chess Workbook for Children, that have appeared on some recommended reading lists of chess organisations and been reviewed on some chess blogs. The question is, is this coverage substantial and significant enough to meet the notability threshold. I don't believe it is.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * First, they are not Google hits, and in fact Google has close to 6,000 hits on Mr. Bardwick as shown here;               .  However, they are Google News searches.  The difference between the two is that a plain old Google search will bring up Blogs  - Wikipedia mirror sites - FaceBook and other references that are viewed as unreliable.  However, Google News list articles from third party - creditable - independent - verifiable sources, ONCE AGAIN that I listed above, that a vast majority of reasonable individuals find as acceptable for establishing notability.  Typically, most disinterested parties find that 50-75 articles listed on Google News established the Notability Guidelines for the subject or individual in question.  In that this individual has well over TWO HUNDRED and FIFTY, individual articles either referencing the subject or in-depth interviews, most reasonable Editors find this as satisfactory.  Thanks ShoesssS Talk 00:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The articles may be from creditable publications, but is the coverage significant? I've yet to see anything. Could you please provide an example of an "in-depth interview"? --Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the Google News hits seem to point to articles written by Mr. Bardwick. They are not about Mr. Bardwick. The main claim to notability is probably the chess manuals he wrote, one of which has an independent review on chessville.com, but I am not sure if that is really significant. I am withholding judgement on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not a problem. But take a look at Creative Professionals. In that Mr. Bardwick could be considered and expert, and in my opinion is, he can also qualify for inclusion under this heading. In the meantime, I have started working on the article. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 17:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ←Comment Along the guideline you cite Creative Professionals, could you please cite a precise reference for that ? Do you have links where his peers or successors cite him ? SyG (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: not notable enough. --MrsHudson (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - No indication that he meets WP:ATHLETE. Who he has played against is irrelevant. — neuro  14:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep from the original publisher of this page. While Mr. Bardwick is a master-level chess player, and perpetually among the best in Colorado, I did not seek to include him on Wikipedia for his chess abilities, because he has not attained the highest levels of International competition, as the GM title denotes. Rather, his truly significant contributions have taken the form of chess authorship and education. His camp is the largest and best-established chess training center in the Rocky Mountain Region, and for more than 15 years he wrote an excellent chess column for the Rocky Mountain News, which had a very large regional distribution. I believe ShoesssS is thinking along the correct lines with the comment "Mr. Bardwick, could also be considered for inclusion here at Wikipedia under Creative professionals as he is looked upon as a ;”…a person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors“." Thanks for considering this input, Moab2021. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.207.86 (talk) 05:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for your input, indeed. By any chance, would you have references in which Mr Bardwick is "widely cited by his peers or successors", so that he would qualify under Creative professionals ? SyG (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - If the article had a claim to being kept, it would most likely be due to his role as a chess teacher and author. Unfortunately, we don't have much third-party opinion testifying to his importance in those roles. The lead of the article emphasizes his performance as a tournament player, which I think exaggerates his significance in that department, since the US Chess Federation web site says that his rating is 2211. International Masters are usually up above 2400, and the world's top players are typically 2700-2800. In the whole world there must be 2,500 or more players higher-ranked than Bardwick, so he is not a top-level competitor. According to this entry Bardwick has not played in a USCF-rated tournament since 1996, so it's been quite a few years since he was last active as a tournament player. EdJohnston (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are more like 20,000 higher-rated players in the world. I checked his tournament record and he usually was in the top 10 in the Colorado Open.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per coverage in reliable independent sources as noted in Shoesss comments. His work as an author, promoter, and competitor in the sport make him well worth including. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Could you please point out one "reliable independent source" in the hundreds cited by Shoesss. I have difficulties to find a correct one. SyG (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - pretty much per EdJohnston, but just to spell it out more clearly: With a 2211 rating from USCF he classifies as an ambitioned amateur competitor, every small-town chess club has a handful of players that strong. So if notability cannot be established from his teaching or writing endeavours then the article should go. --Pgallert (talk) 09:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. None of the references in the article appear to be reliable enough and the article contains too much unreferenced material and material that is "referenced" to unreliable sources. Would need a substantial improvement in the quality of the sources to be kept. - Taxman Talk 15:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a single reliable source. Based upon unreliable sources; no reason for this to stay. Pmlineditor      ∞    11:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. It does not seem that he has any significant sources.  It seems that Bardwick is not notable except, possibly, for his chess publications, but even those are questionable.  GrandMattster 16:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Definitely not strong enough as a player, and the sources are not there to show his writing and coaching are significant enough.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:20, 6 October 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.