371:'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.
528:, and the subject has authored several books that have been independently reviewed, I would imagine that this is a bio that people would want to look up. The article is not a very good one (which is in part my fault, the person behind the IP who initiated this article is me, before I registered an account). However, an entry in the
436:
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.
495:. 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. --
435:
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'
281:
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
224:
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,
398:
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
201:
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
205:
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
326:. 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?
276:
I'm a Chess player as well and I know very well who Andrew Soltis is. The problem is, here on
Knowledge (XXG), 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
170:
290:
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
Knowledge (XXG) standards and rules.
123:
242:. 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.
309:
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.)
164:
202:
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.
417:
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
512:
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.
130:
225:
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.)
403:, section C1: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." That certainly applies here.
524:. Grandmasters have generally been kept, and this is hardly an anonymous grandmaster either. Since Soltis's column features in every
17:
96:
91:
387:
100:
83:
185:
363:. Everyone saying that Soltis is "notable" without providing sources or rationale is just waking the specious argument of
152:
560:
364:
40:
500:
473:
441:
351:
314:
230:
146:
61:
532:, and Hobbes Goodyear's improvements to the article demonstrate that the subject passes the WP:N threshold.
399:
article for deletion that you know to be notable just to try to force others to improve the article. Check
375:
541:
516:
504:
477:
463:
445:
430:
412:
391:
355:
335:
318:
300:
268:
264:
251:
234:
215:
142:
65:
556:
36:
496:
459:
426:
383:
331:
296:
211:
192:
536:
469:
437:
368:
347:
310:
287:
226:
178:
57:
400:
87:
260:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
555:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
53:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
468:
All you're showing w/ comments like that, is that you'd make an excellent WP Administrator.
158:
455:
422:
408:
379:
327:
292:
286:
If he is not notable under
Knowledge (XXG) standards then his article should be deleted.
247:
207:
533:
79:
71:
513:
117:
404:
243:
549:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
282:
are not extant for Andrew Soltis means that he is not notable
113:
109:
105:
177:
367:, which is an argument with no argument. As far as
191:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
563:). No further edits should be made to this page.
421:. That's about it. Never said he was notable.
346:(Hooper, Whyld), a "bible" of chess notability.
8:
342:OGBranniff, Soltis has even got an entry in
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
279:outside reliable independent sources
24:
454:I'm not the lazy pompous one...
259:per Ihardlythinkso and Quale.
1:
542:16:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
517:02:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
505:01:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
478:09:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
464:07:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
446:06:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
431:05:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
413:00:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
392:21:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
356:07:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
344:The Oxford Companion to Chess
336:21:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
319:07:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
301:06:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
269:06:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
252:06:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
235:06:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
216:04:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
66:18:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
580:
284:under wikipedia standards.
552:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
369:User:Ihardlythinkso
288:User:Ihardlythinkso
365:WP:Clearly notable
539:
395:
378:comment added by
571:
554:
537:
530:Oxford Companion
394:
372:
196:
195:
181:
133:
121:
103:
48:The result was
34:
579:
578:
574:
573:
572:
570:
569:
568:
567:
561:deletion review
550:
497:Hobbes Goodyear
373:
138:
129:
94:
78:
75:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
577:
575:
566:
565:
545:
544:
519:
507:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
470:Ihardlythinkso
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
438:Ihardlythinkso
348:Ihardlythinkso
340:
339:
338:
311:Ihardlythinkso
304:
303:
271:
254:
237:
227:Ihardlythinkso
199:
198:
135:
74:
69:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
576:
564:
562:
558:
553:
547:
546:
543:
540:
535:
531:
527:
523:
520:
518:
515:
511:
508:
506:
502:
498:
494:
491:
490:
479:
475:
471:
467:
466:
465:
461:
457:
453:
447:
443:
439:
434:
433:
432:
428:
424:
420:
416:
415:
414:
410:
406:
402:
397:
396:
393:
389:
385:
381:
377:
370:
366:
362:
359:
358:
357:
353:
349:
345:
341:
337:
333:
329:
325:
322:
321:
320:
316:
312:
308:
307:
306:
305:
302:
298:
294:
289:
285:
280:
275:
272:
270:
266:
262:
258:
255:
253:
249:
245:
241:
238:
236:
232:
228:
223:
220:
219:
218:
217:
213:
209:
203:
194:
190:
187:
184:
180:
176:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
144:
141:
140:Find sources:
136:
132:
128:
125:
119:
115:
111:
107:
102:
98:
93:
89:
85:
81:
80:Andrew Soltis
77:
76:
73:
72:Andrew Soltis
70:
68:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
551:
548:
529:
525:
521:
509:
492:
418:
374:— Preceding
360:
343:
323:
283:
278:
273:
261:Double sharp
256:
239:
221:
204:
200:
188:
182:
174:
167:
161:
155:
149:
139:
126:
49:
47:
31:
28:
257:Strong Keep
165:free images
50:Speedy Keep
526:Chess Life
456:OGBranniff
423:OGBranniff
380:OGBranniff
328:OGBranniff
293:OGBranniff
208:OGBranniff
557:talk page
534:Sjakkalle
401:WP:BEFORE
37:talk page
559:or in a
538:(Check!)
388:contribs
376:unsigned
274:Comment.
124:View log
39:or in a
514:Bubba73
361:Comment
324:Comment
206:please.
171:WP refs
159:scholar
97:protect
92:history
54:WP:SNOW
143:Google
101:delete
58:Warden
405:Quale
244:Quale
222:Keep.
186:JSTOR
147:books
131:Stats
118:views
110:watch
106:links
16:<
522:Keep
510:keep
501:talk
493:Keep
474:talk
460:talk
442:talk
427:talk
409:talk
384:talk
352:talk
332:talk
315:talk
297:talk
265:talk
248:talk
240:Keep
231:talk
212:talk
179:FENS
153:news
114:logs
88:talk
84:edit
62:talk
52:per
419:was
193:TWL
122:– (
503:)
476:)
462:)
444:)
429:)
411:)
390:)
386:•
354:)
334:)
317:)
299:)
267:)
250:)
233:)
214:)
173:)
116:|
112:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
64:)
56:.
499:(
472:(
458:(
440:(
425:(
407:(
382:(
350:(
330:(
313:(
295:(
263:(
246:(
229:(
210:(
197:)
189:·
183:·
175:·
168:·
162:·
156:·
150:·
145:(
137:(
134:)
127:·
120:)
82:(
60:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.