Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Gordon

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep. Mackensen (talk) 04:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stephen Gordon

Wikipedia is not for personal homepages. The article does not have encyclopedic potential, as Gordon is not (yet) a notable chess player. Possibly a vanity page. Foolip 14:41, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Vanity, not notable. Android79 23:31, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, for the reasons stated above. Foolip 01:34, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity page, he doesn't sound notable. Howabout1 17:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. (My vote below.) —Korath (Talk) 00:59, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
- It was removed out of process. I remember voting on this from the main VfD page. No change of vote. android↔talk 01:24, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
Keep if he won the championships under the accomplishments section, he's well on his way to being world-class. Reminds me of Josh Waitzkin &#151 FoodMarket&nbsp&nbsp^talk! 02:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete as vanity. I mean come on, every high school has a chess competition. Being one of the few nine-year-olds who play chess doesn't mean you're a child prodigy. Radiant_* 07:59, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
- From what I read, it looks like it was _national_ championships he won (in his age group), not high school competitions, Radiant. &#151 FoodMarket&nbsp&nbsp^talk! 12:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - I know that. My opinion is that there's too many chess competitions for the winner of any of them to be notable, at anything less than world-class level. R adiant _* 14:47, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as vanity, non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:57, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - he's clearly a very able chess player who has won a national competition. I doubt this is vanity because it is created by a registered user whos name is not Stephen Gordon. Oliver Keenan 14:43, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
- For the record - it doesn't have to be written by oneself to be regarded WP:VAIN. R adiant _* 14:47, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
- It may not have been created by Gordon, but it was very likely created by a friend of his, given the upload of a rather candid photo – looks like it was taken with a camera phone or similar. android↔talk 14:48, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
keep national champions, even if children. How else are you supposed to spot a notable child? Kappa 14:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Agree with Kappa. Besides, U.K is a MAJOR chess-playing nation, arguable third in strength to Russia and China in terms of world-class play. Any junior player who has won multiple national championships there is notable &#151 FoodMarket&nbsp&nbsp^talk! 15:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep Notable child chess prodigy. IMHO it would be a bit more notable if he was a pinball wizard. Klonimus 21:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- You mean if someone wrote a musical about him? R adiant _* 13:07, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It's a personal page and a vanity page too. --Neigel von Teighen 21:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Vanity, delete--nixie 01:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)--nixie 01:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. Perhaps in a few years he will warrant an article. --NormanEinstein 22:10, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep iff someone cares to add some references. —Korath (Talk) 11:49, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.