- 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. The arugments for retention seem to outweigh the arguments for deletion, and there is a rough consensus for retention. --MuZemike 02:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Marc Esserman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable as a chess player Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Featured in major newspapers in 2009, 2010, and 2011 with upset victories over established GMs and one super-GM. Articles written by highly established GM-titled chess writers. puzzician 00:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Notability standards for chess players are not firmly established on Wikipedia, and, if any IMs are included at all, Esserman should be kept. His games have been uniquely covered by dozens of international media sources because of their aggression, novelties, rare openings, and tactics. Media attention is the most basic indication of notability, and this article is quite well-sourced. Tfine80 (talk) 17:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable for now. Most IMs have defeated the odd GM at some time or other, but attainment of only the lesser IM title demonstrates that the article's subject has some way to go to being considered a leading or notable chess player. It would therefore be necessary that he excels in some other field or aspect of chess, such as coaching or writing, which is not the case. Neither has there been a standout tournament victory that I could find - and presumably there is no national title, or a title from the world youth or world junior championships. This is the way that we have assessed all other nominee articles for non-GMs playing in the modern era. It should also be noted that there are those editors who even feel that the GM title does not confer enough notability, such is the ease with which the title is gained now, compared with fifty years ago. If I briefly think of other IMs on Wikipedia, I can only recall J Watson (noted writer), Nadanian (noted coach), Dvoretsky (noted writer/coach) etc. Of course if Esserman's play is as 'special' as described above, then he will qualify as a GM in double quick time and may then become an excellent candidate for an article. Brittle heaven (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are these standards written down? There seems to be a massive number of IMs and NMs in Wikipedia, most with no comparable games discussed in international media. This seems suspiciously like intentional targeting. Why focus on Esserman? In addition, IM is a major title; I don't see why Wikipedia cannot have articles on IMs. There is no limit to the number of articles here, so why worry? Tfine80 (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They have been discussed in many AfDs and on the Chess project talk page, but not formally written down. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I would propose deferring a decision until standards are established with a degree of consensus. Otherwise, these battles will be arbitrary fights, with people given incentive to target other players for personal reasons. Esserman should certainly be one of the last IMs to be removed because of his general notability within the U.S. chess world and the wide international media coverage of his games. Tfine80 (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The topic of setting standards came up again nearly 2 months ago (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess#Chess notability) but nothing happened. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I would propose deferring a decision until standards are established with a degree of consensus. Otherwise, these battles will be arbitrary fights, with people given incentive to target other players for personal reasons. Esserman should certainly be one of the last IMs to be removed because of his general notability within the U.S. chess world and the wide international media coverage of his games. Tfine80 (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They have been discussed in many AfDs and on the Chess project talk page, but not formally written down. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Instead of "briefly thinking" of other IMs on Wikipedia, why not do some actual searching (with the aid of a computer? :-) Why this page should be deleted while http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Rendle should be left is beyond any logic to me.Puzzician (talk) 04:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Puzzician, do you have any wp:coi with this article? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bubba, you are the one who started this aggressive attempt to delete a well-sourced article. Shouldn't the suspicion and burden of proof be on you regarding Conflict of Interest? You still haven't explained why it would be appropriate to delete Esserman but not every other IM/FM/WIM/NM/WFM/WGM at the same time. Tfine80 (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, PROD them or put them up for AfD. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want to delete them! This is absurd. The point is that for some reason you are targeting this article with an arbitrary policy that is not consented upon or implemented evenly in the Wiki. Tfine80 (talk) 17:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then go back and check my history of !voting in AfDs of minor chess players. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's one example of an article -- of several -- where I see an inconsistency in your stance. You have frequently edited the article for Abby Marshall, a young WFM who is not even yet a WIM. How could you possibly align this with your attempt to delete Esserman? Tfine80 (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then go back and check my history of !voting in AfDs of minor chess players. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want to delete them! This is absurd. The point is that for some reason you are targeting this article with an arbitrary policy that is not consented upon or implemented evenly in the Wiki. Tfine80 (talk) 17:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, PROD them or put them up for AfD. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So far, I have a) added structure and convention to the article b) added important facts c) removed non-neutral language d) cleaned up grammar and e) sourced everything thoroughly f) referenced a policy inconsistency here that has gone unanswered. I value any opinions based on substantive criticisms of the work and its adherence to wp:POLICY. I advocate only for the quality of editing. As far as voting, I think we need more opinions than those of just editors of this article and those whose AfD standard falls outside the de-facto consensus for chess player inclusion.Puzzician (talk) 19:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bubba, you are the one who started this aggressive attempt to delete a well-sourced article. Shouldn't the suspicion and burden of proof be on you regarding Conflict of Interest? You still haven't explained why it would be appropriate to delete Esserman but not every other IM/FM/WIM/NM/WFM/WGM at the same time. Tfine80 (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Puzzician, do you have any wp:coi with this article? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are these standards written down? There seems to be a massive number of IMs and NMs in Wikipedia, most with no comparable games discussed in international media. This seems suspiciously like intentional targeting. Why focus on Esserman? In addition, IM is a major title; I don't see why Wikipedia cannot have articles on IMs. There is no limit to the number of articles here, so why worry? Tfine80 (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This has no direct bearing on this AfD, but the article under consideration has been edited by these Single-purpose accounts:
- The article was created by user:Tetuphenay, who since 2008 has edited only this article and Murray Turnbull, who has a link to Esserman.
- user:Gregatwan has edited only this article.
- user:NektonCap has edited only this article.
- user:Puzzician has edited only this article.
- user:71.233.149.62 has edited only this article.
Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't this just establish Esserman's notability? That lots of chess people are motivated to edit this article? Would it be worse if it was clearly just written by one person as a vanity article? By the way, Turnbull is very well known in Cambridge and is a fixture there who has been covered in lots of newspapers. If you lived there, you wouldn't even think of deleting him. Tfine80 (talk) 17:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it makes it very suspicious that there is a conflict of interest. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't this just establish Esserman's notability? That lots of chess people are motivated to edit this article? Would it be worse if it was clearly just written by one person as a vanity article? By the way, Turnbull is very well known in Cambridge and is a fixture there who has been covered in lots of newspapers. If you lived there, you wouldn't even think of deleting him. Tfine80 (talk) 17:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. SyG (talk) 15:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Not notable as a chess player but appears to meet the requirements of General notability guideline, so therefore is a keep. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:GNG per findings such as [1], [2] and [3], among other The New York Times and Boston Globes articles. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.