| Revision as of 09:39, 10 March 2013 editIhardlythinkso (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers75,330 edits →Maurice W. Johnson: sick of it; last time for me← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:51, 10 March 2013 edit undoIhardlythinkso (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers75,330 edits →Maurice W. Johnson: no credibilityNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| Correspondence chess Grandmasters are not inherently notable. This article also has had a BLP uncourced tag since June 2012. No sources available. Delete please. Thank you. ] (]) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC) | Correspondence chess Grandmasters are not inherently notable. This article also has had a BLP uncourced tag since June 2012. No sources available. Delete please. Thank you. ] (]) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep'''. The article is linked from ] and contains cited details that are not suitable to merge into that article. There are actually a lot fewer ICCGMs than over-the-board ], so it's possible that being an ICCGM is more notable than being a GM. Three British Correspondence Chess Championships is also a claim for notability. ] (]) 08:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC) | *'''Keep'''. The article is linked from ] and contains cited details that are not suitable to merge into that article. There are actually a lot fewer ICCGMs than over-the-board ], so it's possible that being an ICCGM is more notable than being a GM. Three British Correspondence Chess Championships is also a claim for notability. ] (]) 08:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep + Complaint.''' First "Women's champions are not inherently notable (not being men)", and now this?! I've been reading about AfD, and it is not supposed to be used as a "cleanup" mechanism, and discussion on article Talk is supposed to absorb much of the challenges before precipitating to an AfD. Is this the nomninator's way of learning about Notability and etc.? That is <u>abuse of the process</u> here, and I for one am sick of it. Notable title earned by article subject. Notable achievements. Like Brash, this user won't be responding anymore to these AfD wastes of time & attention to the tune of OGBranniff's whims to throw nukes for others to fend, when he skirts homework and legwork prescribed in all the AfD documentation anyone would care to read. ] (]) 09:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC) | *'''Keep + Complaint.''' First "Women's champions are not inherently notable (not being men)", and now this?! I've been reading about AfD, and it is not supposed to be used as a "cleanup" mechanism, and discussion on article Talk is supposed to absorb much of the challenges before precipitating to an AfD. Is this the nomninator's way of learning about Notability and etc.? That is <u>abuse of the process</u> here, and I for one am sick of it. Notable title earned by article subject. Notable achievements. Like Brash, this user won't be responding anymore to these AfD wastes of time & attention to the tune of OGBranniff's whims to throw nukes for others to fend, when he skirts homework and legwork prescribed in all the AfD documentation anyone would care to read. The comparison to Gestapo and Nazi SS was particularly offensive, in addition to recent German quip from the nom. The AfD justifications I've read are indefensibly exaggerated and unaccountably hyperbolic, and I'm not going to waste my time reading them anymore, they don't warrant serious attention just because this new, uneducated User decides to make a hobby (or joke) of lobbing AfD nukes whenever he pleases. It is an abuse of the AfD process, and of other editors' time & attention (i.e. disruption). Good luck. ] (]) 09:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 09:51, 10 March 2013
Maurice W. Johnson
- Maurice W. Johnson (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)
Correspondence chess Grandmasters are not inherently notable. This article also has had a BLP uncourced tag since June 2012. No sources available. Delete please. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. The article is linked from International Correspondence Chess Grandmaster and contains cited details that are not suitable to merge into that article. There are actually a lot fewer ICCGMs than over-the-board grandmasters, so it's possible that being an ICCGM is more notable than being a GM. Three British Correspondence Chess Championships is also a claim for notability. Quale (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep + Complaint. First "Women's champions are not inherently notable (not being men)", and now this?! I've been reading about AfD, and it is not supposed to be used as a "cleanup" mechanism, and discussion on article Talk is supposed to absorb much of the challenges before precipitating to an AfD. Is this the nomninator's way of learning about Notability and etc.? That is abuse of the process here, and I for one am sick of it. Notable title earned by article subject. Notable achievements. Like Brash, this user won't be responding anymore to these AfD wastes of time & attention to the tune of OGBranniff's whims to throw nukes for others to fend, when he skirts homework and legwork prescribed in all the AfD documentation anyone would care to read. The comparison to Gestapo and Nazi SS was particularly offensive, in addition to recent German quip from the nom. The AfD justifications I've read are indefensibly exaggerated and unaccountably hyperbolic, and I'm not going to waste my time reading them anymore, they don't warrant serious attention just because this new, uneducated User decides to make a hobby (or joke) of lobbing AfD nukes whenever he pleases. It is an abuse of the AfD process, and of other editors' time & attention (i.e. disruption). Good luck. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)