Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Saunders (chess player)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 09:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Saunders (chess player)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable, no significant coverage in reliable sources. Potential BLP issues also arise in non-sourced, non-notable living person articles. OGBranniff (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- I think his editorship of Chess magazines may make him just about notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - [changing !vote based on discussion below --Noleander (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)] ~~Weak delete~~ - Yes, he wrote a few minor books; and yes, he edited a magazine: but I don't see any independent sources talking about him. Where is the chess magazine article about him? Where is the Welsh newspaper article about "local boy makes good"? I looked and cannot find any such independent sources. Absent those, I don't see how he meets WP:GNG. --Noleander (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has been editor of two significant chess magazines including the world's oldest and one of the best known, BCM, and authored several books. Represented Wales in international team competition. Quale (talk) 06:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Quale - Can you provide some reliable sources that back-up those facts? I'd be happy to change my !vote, but I couldn't find any sources outside of blog-ish web sites. --Noleander (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent question, and in fact the editors list in the British Chess Magazine article itself is not adequately sourced. Someone who subscribes to BCM could verify it directly from the magazine, and it could be sourced there. Unfortunately I don't have access to any BCM issues at the moment. I did find British Chess Magazine – new editor on the ECF site. It isn't perfect, but it seems reliable. Quale (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think being editor and author is enough, especially since he was editor of BCM for about 11 years and current editor of Chess magazine - both are major, well-known publications. As far as representing Wales in international competition, he was only first reserve in one European championship. That alone would not be enough for notability, but the editorship is his main claim to notability. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 01:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think consensus seemed to already be in favor of keeping, but I as well feel that his involvement in the chess publication community is notable. Ducknish (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. notable as editor of 2 notable magazines. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. – SJ + 03:28, 21 March 2013 (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.