Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Hoffer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. -- Cirt (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael Hoffer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lacks notability and may have autobiography or COI issues. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 02:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: there is another person with the same name that is a Swedish Decathelon athlete. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 05:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: fails WP:ATHLETE, which applies here, despite chess being a sedenatry sport. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable as a player (doesn't appear in FIDE's database) and I can find no sources indicating much significance as a coach or journalist.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment FIDE doesn't have correspondence chess players does it? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- REply He has a USCF CC rating (in the external links) and he played 9 games with the ICCF (in the external links). He has no ICCF rating. (The ICCF requires 12 games for a published rating.) Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 00:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They really don't help at all. Over the board is, for some, not the same as correspondence. Otherwise the ICCF doesn't appear to show past ratings. Hoffer NIC publication was from 1990, so it looks like that he is now twenty years ago past his peak. I'd like to see what is in the NIC publication but I don't have that available. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- REply He has a USCF CC rating (in the external links) and he played 9 games with the ICCF (in the external links). He has no ICCF rating. (The ICCF requires 12 games for a published rating.) Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 00:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment FIDE doesn't have correspondence chess players does it? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep- Seems to meet WP:GNG. Am somewhat impressed with the undefeated record at Correspondence Chess. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Who has he played? What is the quality of the tournaments he has entered?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Who cares? If he meets WP:N it doesn't matter. That said, I don't think he does meet WP:N. The sources in the article aren't great and I can't find anything else... Hobit (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What I was trying to get at was if the tournaments that he has entered or won are notable, then that might indicate whether he is notable too...--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Games on chessgames.com say First National Team Championship corres. His opponents seem to be in the FM Elo range Wayne Conover whom he played twice had an over-the-board Elo rating of 2305 in 2000 at the age of sixty. One can only imagine that he would of been stronger ten years before. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I'd misunderstood. Hobit (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What I was trying to get at was if the tournaments that he has entered or won are notable, then that might indicate whether he is notable too...--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Who cares? If he meets WP:N it doesn't matter. That said, I don't think he does meet WP:N. The sources in the article aren't great and I can't find anything else... Hobit (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note One of the editors of the article is user:yes2chess, and www.yes2chess.com is the name of Hoffer's website, raising WP:AUTOBIO concerns. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 00:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While COI is a concern, that is not grounds deletion. However, lack of notability is and the subject has been the object of requisite WP:V, WP:IS to demonstrate notability. Eusebeus (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. In addition to conflict of interest concerns, the subject does not appear to be a very notable chess player. The subject may very well be a good player, but good and notable are different things. Chicken Wing (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: There is some lengthy discussion about this article on its talk page. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 22:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Winning a tournament that doesn't in itself seem notable doesn't meet the requirements of WP:ATHLETE, and there's not enough there as a chess writer to demonstrate that the subject meets WP:BIO. Quale (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. SyG (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2010 (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.