Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Murphy (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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Only 'delete' !vote has been reversed. (non-admin closure) &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  16:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Tom Murphy (chess player)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable at all: amateur chess player (~ 2000 USCF) who doesn't even have an international FIDE rating, let alone being a GM or a national champion (usual notability criteria for chess players)! Sophia91 (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn by nominator: Sasata added other references, now has sufficient coverage. Sophia91 (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - I agree that the article should be deleted. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - I've added a few sources that could be used to expand this article (and more could readily be found with a search). While Murphy does not meet the "usual notability criteria for chess players", he meets the general notability for BLP subjects in Wikipedia ("A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."). Sasata (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep only if it can be better improved but if not Draft and userfy until a better article is available. SwisterTwister   talk  05:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep There is sufficient coverage to let this person clear the GNG threshold, but the article needs to incorporate these into the text. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as the reason for this nomination seems to be a WP:DIDNOTWIN argument. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 20:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎, I did not AfD it for a "a WP:DIDNOTWIN argument" as you say, just check the history of the page: before Sasata expand it, the article was not something that I would have called "a topic who has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Good that Sasata have found other sources, because I did not find anything. Sophia91 (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I've changed my mind about this after reading Wikipedia's notability guidelines. According to WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Tom Murphy (chess player) passes that test since several articles were written about him. I agree with that Murphy isn't notable as a chess player since he isn't a grandmaster and hasn't won a significant championship. He's a street hustler, as are many other people, and he won the Under 2200 prize at the World Open Blitz Championship, as have many other people. But since multiple news sources wrote human interest stories about him, I now think that makes him notable from a Wikipedia point of view. I agree that the article should be expanded with information from the cited sources. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 14:05, 14 February 2016 (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.