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 no consensus. LFaraone 21:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Turnbull[edit]

Murray Turnbull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The subject does not seem notable enough. Sources given are only local webzines or newspaper, and most statements in the article are unsourced. SyG (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not notable enough. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I don't understand this sudden attack on major chess personalities in Boston, along with Marc Esserman. Turnbull has been noted in many, many newspapers over the years, and he is a well-known "city personality" in Cambridge and at Harvard. I cannot comprehend why you are suddenly attacking the Boston chess scene in this way. Tfine80 (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think you should consider an AfD as "sudden attack", it seems this is getting a bit emotional, which will always be harmful. The thing is, an article on the English Wikipedia should not be notable at the scale of Boston, but notable at the scale of the world, which makes a big difference. My understanding is that Wikipedia is not aiming to be a site to describe all the chess scenes of all cities in the world, even cities as big as Boston. SyG (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Passes notability guidelines, per significant coverage in reliable sources: [1], [2], [3]. There's also coverage in the Harvard University Gazette: [4], The Harvard Crimson [5] and Harvard Chess Club archives [6]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have seen no reference to this player in books or international chess journals. I can only assume his notability is on a local scale only. Our normal criteria is GM or IM with notable sideline. I can't see this here. Brittle heaven (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsure re policy Turnbull is a "human interest story". That's the basis of all the published sources being cited. He's not notable on the same basis as a GM or IM is notable (playing level and tournament or match results), but rather on what he's decided to do with his life, and his personality. To say his fame is bound to a particular geographic area, isn't 100% right, since his notoriety isn't all invested in his physical stomping ground, but to a large degree it is (his location has remained stable since 1982). The article is more than 50% about *him* (if he picked up and moved to Philadelphia, the same "Chessmaster" presumably would emerge there, too). He seems to be a colorful "cool-cat character" and human interest story, but the interest seems currently to be restricted to the local area where he performs (again, stable since '82), and not at a national or world-level. (But theoretically or potentially it could become that tomorrow, say, if he suddenly showed up as a feature human interest story on CBS 60 Minutes, etc.) Until his story publication becomes wider known (for any reason), his notoriety seems to be bound to his current locale, SyG is right about that. (But, does WP have policy limiting notability to that of national or world level?) Clearly Turnbull *is* notable in his current home locale, since '82. If guidelines steer away from locally-restricted notability, then my !vote changes to: Soft Delete. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. My working assumption for chess players is that something less than an International Master really needs something extra to generate sufficient notability - the closest we get here is that he once played a guy to a draw who would later become an IM (but presumably was not at the time they played), and one of his students went on to achieve something. If there is enough human interest that would do it (does the guy feature in Boston tourist guides?), as would be the case if they were the leading player from a certain country, or a prominent player from a particular background. But all I see is a Harvard drop-out who plays an awful lot of chess without winning any tournaments of note. I just don't see how that is notable? --Legis (talk - contribs) 22:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; I mistakenly equated being published w/ notability. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legis, I agree. But am currently having trouble finding the/a policy supporting meaning of word "notable" as described by your view. (WP:INDISCRIMINATE hints at it: "merely being verifiable does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" but doesn't give def outside of excluding some lists/lyrics/stats etc. Where is it? I must be burnt out and missing it. [Otherwise would be necessary to debate a def in this little AfD, which would be just nuts—reinventing the wheel—since notability is a "pillar" for yrs Pete's sake.] Thx for assist.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC) p.s. I assume the policy isn't intentionally obtuse so editors can nash at each others throats over competing interpretations what is "suitable" or not.[reply]

Legis, am drawing the conclusion there is no def of "notable" in WP supporting your view "how is that notable?". It seems WP:GNG = "are there WP:RSs?", and if not excluded in WP:NOT, then a subject is "notable". WP says notability is "worthy of notice", but that is unhelpful, it does not contribute to a further definition. I can't find anything in the WP policy supporting your view, even tho I agree w/ your view. (Plz correct me if am wrong and have missed something.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (people): "Worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can a WikiProject, like WikiProj Chess, define its own (narrowing) notability requirement, even tho a subject has WP:V and is not excluded by WP:NOT thus satisfying "notability" under general WP policy? (And if so, *has* WikiProj Chess done it already, or not?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is fascinating me thinks, ditto the result, because of its centering on vague WP policy. (Does notability = reliable sources exist? If so, does WP say to what "degree" RSs are needed? Or give any way to "measure" them? No. So, what is deemed "sufficient" or "insufficient" beyond personal like or dislike?) There seem to be no clear defs to work with. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He gets coverage in reliable sources. He seems to be a local established landmark. "On board 1 in the square is "chessmaster" Murray Turnbull (2390), a fixture since 1982" Dream Focus 00:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read meaning in your first sentence. But none in the second & third sentences. Do you mean to say the existence of the reliable sources is sufficient to say "notable"? Please clarify your view for me, thx. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2012 (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.