| Revision as of 06:12, 28 December 2012 editIhardlythinkso (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers75,330 edits →Andrew Soltis: re← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:28, 28 December 2012 edit undoOGBranniff (talk | contribs)506 edits →Andrew SoltisNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| ::::Actually I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that. The article is almost certain to be kept even if it isn't improved at all. Despite this it would certainly be best if the article were improved. Since you admit the subject is notable, you should understand that it is frowned upon to nominate an article for deletion that you know to be notable just to try to force others to improve the article. Check ], section C1: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." That certainly applies here. ] (]) 00:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC) | ::::Actually I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that. The article is almost certain to be kept even if it isn't improved at all. Despite this it would certainly be best if the article were improved. Since you admit the subject is notable, you should understand that it is frowned upon to nominate an article for deletion that you know to be notable just to try to force others to improve the article. Check ], section C1: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." That certainly applies here. ] (]) 00:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :::::I never said I knew the subject was "notable." The closest I might have come to that is me saying that I'm a Chess player and thus knew who the subject ''was''. That's about it. Never said he was notable. ] (]) 05:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC) | :::::I never said I knew the subject was "notable." The closest I might have come to that is me saying that I'm a Chess player and thus knew who the subject ''was''. That's about it. Never said he was notable. ] (]) 05:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::Here's what you wrote that I believe Quale was referring to: "I agree, sources in the 'print world' are more than sufficient to establish notability." OGBranniff, I'm more than capable of researching and adding supportive refs, so I don't appreciate the presumptuous insult ("I guess 'Ihardlythinkso' hardly thinks he's capable of adding such print sources to the article."). BTW I agree with others the article needed improvement, in case you thought otherwise. I wasn't interested to do myself due to time & interest considerations, is all, and don't deserve your aggressiveness as a result, it's uncivil, please straighten up. ] (]) 06:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC) |
::::::Here's what you wrote that I believe Quale was referring to: "I agree, sources in the 'print world' are more than sufficient to establish notability." OGBranniff, I'm more than capable of researching and adding supportive refs, so I don't appreciate the presumptuous insult ("I guess 'Ihardlythinkso' hardly thinks he's capable of adding such print sources to the article."). BTW I agree with others the article needed improvement, in case you thought otherwise. I wasn't interested to do myself due to time & interest considerations, is all, and don't deserve your aggressiveness as a result, it's uncivil, please straighten up. ] (]) 06:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ::::I'm not the lazy pompous one... ] (]) 07:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep'''. I sympathize with both sides of this debate, as I do find this subject to be obviously notable but understand the need to demonstrate the bona fides when challenged. I've added seven cites to the article, and I assure you that there are hundreds, perhaps thousands more available from RS sources. --] (]) 01:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC) | *'''Keep'''. I sympathize with both sides of this debate, as I do find this subject to be obviously notable but understand the need to demonstrate the bona fides when challenged. I've added seven cites to the article, and I assure you that there are hundreds, perhaps thousands more available from RS sources. --] (]) 01:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
| *'''keep''' he is certainly notable, being in paper encyclopedias. I'm away from home right now, so I can't provide refs. Article does need improvement, though. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC) | *'''keep''' he is certainly notable, being in paper encyclopedias. I'm away from home right now, so I can't provide refs. Article does need improvement, though. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 07:28, 28 December 2012
Andrew Soltis
- Andrew Soltis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This person has no reliable third-party sources attesting to his notability in any way. His FIDE "card" is not a source for anything at all, and some website called "Chessgames.com" is certainly not a reliable source. Furthermore, the information in either "source" does not establish why the subject is notable or special either. This article may be blatant advertising for his self-published works. If not blatant, it still most certainly is advertising.
The only thing cited to any source at all is that the subject is a "grandmaster." That in itself does not beet the notability criteria. Now take out all the unsourced stuff and what do you have? A five word article that goes like "Andrew Soltis is a Grandmaster." So thus delete please.OGBranniff (talk) 04:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm sorry, nothing personal, but (to quote Dennis Brown) "I'd be lying if I didn't say" I couldn't stop from being amused, over the idea the Soltis bio would be considered "non-notable". (I know that's not an argument, and I haven't reviewed the status of the article regarding it's supporting refs, but this should be a SNOW KEEP, if that's possible in AfD, and anyone involved in chess for any length of time will say the same, I'm quite sure.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. The article definitely needs improvement (especially more references), but the subject is notable. Soltis would qualify as chess player and also independently as an author. Quale (talk) 06:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Strong Keep per Ihardlythinkso and Quale. Double sharp (talk) 06:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm a Chess player as well and I know very well who Andrew Soltis is. The problem is, here on Misplaced Pages, we can't take our insider knowledge from our "field" (it seems in all our cases, we are Chess players) . . .to deem someone "notable." There has to be outside reliable independent sources to back that up. If Soltis does qualify as a "notable" player there should be reliable sources that can vouch for his fame, notoriety, whatever. Like, we don't have problems finding third-party sources that vouch for Bobby Fischer, Magnus Carlsen, Hikaru Nakamura, etc. The fact that such sources are not extant for Andrew Soltis means that he is not notable under wikipedia standards. If he is not notable under Misplaced Pages standards then his article should be deleted. User:Ihardlythinkso even admitted he hadn't "reviewed the status of the article regarding it's supporting refs..." If he had done so, he would have had no choice but to "vote" Delete, per Misplaced Pages standards and rules. OGBranniff (talk) 06:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Not correct. Content can exist on WP without supporting reliable refs, if reliable sources are available in the print world. (And for Soltis, there's no doubt about that.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. What are you talking about? Content CANNOT exist on WP without supporting reliable refs in articles on living persons. And if there are "sources available in the print world," where are they? Why are you not finding them and inserting them into the article here? OGBranniff (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- OGBranniff, Soltis has even got an entry in The Oxford Companion to Chess (Hooper, Whyld), a "bible" of chess notability. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. Everyone saying that Soltis is "notable" without providing sources or rationale is just waking the specious argument of WP:Clearly notable, which is an argument with no argument. As far as User:Ihardlythinkso's statements, I agree, sources in the "print world" are more than sufficient to establish notability. The print world is much more legitimate than the internet world, I would say. The problem here is, nobody has bothered to research these supposed "print" sources and include them in the article. I guess "Ihardlythinkso" hardly thinks he's capable of adding such print sources to the article. Unless someone finds legitimate print sources, and inserts them into the article in a manner that proves notability, this article is going to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OGBranniff (talk • contribs) 21:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Actually I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that. The article is almost certain to be kept even if it isn't improved at all. Despite this it would certainly be best if the article were improved. Since you admit the subject is notable, you should understand that it is frowned upon to nominate an article for deletion that you know to be notable just to try to force others to improve the article. Check WP:BEFORE, section C1: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." That certainly applies here. Quale (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- I never said I knew the subject was "notable." The closest I might have come to that is me saying that I'm a Chess player and thus knew who the subject was. That's about it. Never said he was notable. OGBranniff (talk) 05:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- Here's what you wrote that I believe Quale was referring to: "I agree, sources in the 'print world' are more than sufficient to establish notability." OGBranniff, I'm more than capable of researching and adding supportive refs, so I don't appreciate the presumptuous insult ("I guess 'Ihardlythinkso' hardly thinks he's capable of adding such print sources to the article."). BTW I agree with others the article needed improvement, in case you thought otherwise. I wasn't interested to do myself due to time & interest considerations, is all, and don't deserve your aggressiveness as a result, it's uncivil, please straighten up. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- I never said I knew the subject was "notable." The closest I might have come to that is me saying that I'm a Chess player and thus knew who the subject was. That's about it. Never said he was notable. OGBranniff (talk) 05:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not the lazy pompous one... OGBranniff (talk) 07:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- Actually I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that. The article is almost certain to be kept even if it isn't improved at all. Despite this it would certainly be best if the article were improved. Since you admit the subject is notable, you should understand that it is frowned upon to nominate an article for deletion that you know to be notable just to try to force others to improve the article. Check WP:BEFORE, section C1: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." That certainly applies here. Quale (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. Everyone saying that Soltis is "notable" without providing sources or rationale is just waking the specious argument of WP:Clearly notable, which is an argument with no argument. As far as User:Ihardlythinkso's statements, I agree, sources in the "print world" are more than sufficient to establish notability. The print world is much more legitimate than the internet world, I would say. The problem here is, nobody has bothered to research these supposed "print" sources and include them in the article. I guess "Ihardlythinkso" hardly thinks he's capable of adding such print sources to the article. Unless someone finds legitimate print sources, and inserts them into the article in a manner that proves notability, this article is going to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OGBranniff (talk • contribs) 21:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Not correct. Content can exist on WP without supporting reliable refs, if reliable sources are available in the print world. (And for Soltis, there's no doubt about that.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. I sympathize with both sides of this debate, as I do find this subject to be obviously notable but understand the need to demonstrate the bona fides when challenged. I've added seven cites to the article, and I assure you that there are hundreds, perhaps thousands more available from RS sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- keep he is certainly notable, being in paper encyclopedias. I'm away from home right now, so I can't provide refs. Article does need improvement, though. Bubba73 02:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)