Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Dorsch

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 of the debate was delete. When meatpuppets call for deletion, you know it's bad. howcheng {chat} 20:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tom_Dorsch

delete: barely notable person, only for regular readers of chess related usenetgroups and people interested in US-chess functionaries, the article itself gives no hint, why Tom Dorsch should be notable enough for a wikipedia entry; article is mainly vanity, filled with personal accusations and rumors; the prime author has a long standing quarrel with Tom Dorsch, well documented on his homepage(s) and obvious in the arcticle; he is not able or willing to provide a NPOV, although he has been explicitely asked to do so; I suggest deletion instead of complete rewrite, as it is questionlable that anyobody is interested in doing so Rook wave 11:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I've rewritten the article, or rather, I've deleted everything that's either a personal attack, unencyclopedic and/or unsourced/unreferenced. While I do not want to disrupt the deletion process, I don't think it's nescessary to keep the article in it's old form for a week longer, just because of this AfD. I don't know anything about this guy (therefore, I will refrain from voting), nor have a been involved in the discussion on the talk page, I'm just an editor applying what I believe to be common sense and Wikipedia policy. --JoanneB 11:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Tom doesn't appear to be active in chess recently. His FIDE card lists no games this year and he doesn't have a world ranking. Is there anything else that could make him worth including? (BTW, what's a chess politician?) - Mgm|^(talk) 12:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding chess politician: I prefer the notion chess functionary, simply somebody involved in the organization of chess; Tom Dorsch was for some time treasurer of the United States Chess Federation and twice president of the Northern California Chess Association, and if the article would not be deleted these were his only notable achievements, and my first edits (regarded by the prime author as vandalism) indeed reduced the article to just those facts. What he as achieved when being in those positions, the primary author unfortunately did not consider worth mentioning.

Regarding his rating: currently only a minority of players has a FIDE rating or many entries to this card; Tom Dorsch has a United States Chess Federation rating, but indeed he hasn't played for some time. His rating is high, but not exceptional. Rook wave 12:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Tom Dorsch was for some time treasurer of the United States Chess Federation and twice president of the Northern California Chess Association —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MacGyverMagic (talk • contribs).

• Keep has held several top positions in US chess organizations. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, this might be a reason, but it still leaves the question: who is going to provide the necessary facts? The original article did not even give the complete years Tom Dorsch held those positions. There are nearly no neutral facts in this article. Rook wave 14:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Dorsch was treasurer of the USCF and president of the Northern California association (Calchess). I don't see that as "several top positions in US chess organizations". The USCF is the US national federation but Treasurer is not a top position, and Dorsch served only one term, in the early 90's. Calchess is a state organization (actually half a state, there's a separate Southern California regional organization), not a national one. Dorsch is a somewhat notable figure in recent USCF history and should get a mention in an expanded USCF page, but it's bizarre to say that every USCF ex-officer (there are hundreds of them) rates their own Wikipedia article. The USCF itself is not that important an organization. The person currently holding the comparable office (Finance VP Jonathan Mariner) in Major League Baseball, a much more noteworthy organization than the USCF, doesn't have a Wikipedia article, let alone someone who held that office many years ago. Imagine ex-functionaries of a national stamp collecting club getting all this Wikipedia heat. The only reason it happens for the USCF is because of the contentious personalities in the chess world arguing over nonsense. Phr 11:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Like I've been discussing on the talk page, all of the POV junk and attacks need removed, User:Sam Sloan disagrees -- that's why there's a current RfC on the article. Nothing to suggest he's not notable though. And thank you Joann for cleaning up the article again. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 17:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Since there seems no chance to keep this article anything but a blatent attack, changing vote to Delete. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The most noteworthy thing about Dorsch was his campaign for USCF treasurer and what happened after he won the office (all his duties were taken away by the opposing faction which still controlled the policy board). Explaining this would require spending pages on stupid USCF internal politics which almost nobody cares about. The reason Sloan made this page at all is he's in the faction opposite the one Dorsch was in. Having an article about Dorsch makes no sense at all without a neutral treatment of those issues, but I don't think anyone is likely to write such a treatment. Certainly not Sloan. (OK, quick POV version: Dorsch ran on a financial reform platform against vested interests that have controlled the USCF on and off for decades, made accusations of mismanagement that turned out to be true, but was a dorky enough personality that not enough people listened to him at the time, partly because it was in their financial or factional interest to not listen. That includes Sloan.) Trying to turn that into an article would be one of those endless debates that would burn as much of people's wiki-editing energy as the serious national politics articles do, but on a subject of relevance to almost nobody. So creating this article in the first place basically amounts to trolling. I hope non-chess people who voted "keep" based on not understanding the situation will consider changing their votes. Phr 11:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the changes by Joann: ok, now the article is much shorter, but it's still junk. Come on "He plays chess and has now become a poker player" - what is this? As I said: my complaints about this article are not primarly based on the notability of Tom Dorsch. It's the complete emptyness of this article. And who is going to write something? Even what Joann has left is not verified. If you remove this as well, only the title tag remains. So the content of this article is: "There is a man called Tom Dorsch." Bravo. Rook wave 18:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Dorsch is a former treasurer of the USCF, which is sort of like being a former treasurer of the National Bowling League or a former councilmember of some small city. He did have a role in the USCF's transition to the one-member-one-vote system (he opposed it) and he could reasonably get a mention in the USCF's article if it's expanded to cover that history (edit: his treasurer campaign too, a related topic). His highest chess rating was in the 2300's, probably around 1000th in the US--pretty good for an amateur, but nowhere near professional level. The stuff about him getting more Google hits than GM Vesselin Topolov was an error due to Sloan mispelling Topolov's name as "Topalov" when Googling. FWIW, Googling "Tam Dorsch" or "Tom Darsch" gets zero hits. Phr 03:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment Wouldn't the treasurer of the National Bowling League be more notable? Billbrock 23:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Sam Sloan is insisiting on reverting the article to his own version, and as such, I call for a delete and a complete rewrite after the delete has been done. Olorin28 03:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is obviously in a crappy state, and I don't think it is going to be fixed up any time soon. When there's an actual article here, I might vote keep. But until then, no. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Olorin28. I am not neutral WRT to Sam Sloan, and would note to admins that I have no desire to inject my animus into the Wikipedia project, except that this is the character of the Wikipedian in question. Billbrock 07:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete I don't know why this one wasn't speedied as an attack. It seems to me, an unsourced and unverifiable statement like "....If he won even more, he would go to Tijuana, Mexico, where he would check out the whorehouses and the strip clubs..." can only be construed as a personal attack.TheRingess 07:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete: barely notable person —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.149.49.251 (talk • contribs).
• delete: I am a chess player from the USA and think this article is a waste of everyone's time. In the world of chess Tom Dorsch is insignificant and the article does not belong. This is yet another attempt by Sam Sloan to get noticed by the world at large. Warren 66.32.15.53 01:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, based only in small part to the sorry state of the article and based not at all on Sam Sloan, who I have never heard of or dealt with as far as I am aware. I don't think Dorsch is all that notable, save for what is mentioned by Phr (who makes some good points). -Parallel or Together? 12:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

User Rook wave, who started this discussion, has been going around removing content from all of my postings. He has made 41 edits to my pages, all of which have removed content, and he has done nothing else on Wikipedia. He should be ordered to stop doing this and if he persists, he should be blocked. Sam Sloan 01:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep--public figure based on own self-promotions, including on usenet over a period of years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.167.65.99 (talk • contribs).

It is suspected that this user might be a sock puppet or impersonator of Sam Sloan. Please refer to contrib history coinciding with Sloan's pet subjects "USCF blacklist" and Damiano's Defense for evidence. See block log and current autoblocks.

.

Note Sloan has also attempted to recruit meatpuppets on Usenet [1], though that attempt seems to have backfired--it attracted people here who support deletion. I will say sockpuppets aren't really Sloan's style since his ego is too large for that. He probably just forgot to log in when he made those edits. Phr 13:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I cannot imagine why you think that this poster is my "sockpuppet" or even me. I have just looked at his postings and I do not agree with what he has posted on any subject. I do not agree with what he has written here either. However, he makes a valid point. If you look at rec.games.chess.politics and do a search for postings by tomdorsch@aol.com you will see that he has posted 2,680 times to thst group. Most of these postings took place from 1996 to 1999 and were signed "Tom Dorsch USCF Treasurer". So, he was an official who posted 2,680 times to Usenet. Most of his postings accused others of financial wrongdoing, theft and other crimes and misdemeanors. Please do a search there and you will see what I mean. This is what made him so well known in the chess community. Sam Sloan 15:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

KEEP - Dorsch is well known in the world of chess, and deserves recognition. The article itself could use some polishing, but it should be fixed and maintained. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cwcarlson (talk • contribs).

KEEP - Tom Dorsch is very well known in the chess world (nationally and internationally) and has been instrumental in the United States Chess Federation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.215.30.18 (talk • contribs).

DELETE - I think this is a ridiculously inappropriate article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ardy53 (talk • contribs).

• Keep This issue shows the complete bankrupt and petty nature of Wikipedia's modus operandi, members, and raison de etre, though I support the proper construction of such an article I think Wikipeda is a collective waste of time intellectually: Where they venerate the "HOLY BIBLE" for some obscure legalist reason today from the stuff cults are made of, but then next week they will burn and destroy those same "holy" documents on some flimsy pretext merely because they have enough votes in legalistic BOOK BURNING as part of some psychotic adversial process that is run like some childishness for the sake of integrity and fairness based merely on form and rules. WIKIPEDIA A GRAND MIND F--K a pedantic idiots' paradise where which ever side you are on you will win and tommarow upon the changing winds of shallow fashion some other will. I suggest all chess articles be forwarded to pushedpawn.org, deism to the templeofreason.org as without sure consistent editorial focus beyond the instance of the moment Wikipedia has the integrity of an adolescent fool. The focus of Wikipedia should be substance not form, and it should be based on preservation of every nuance of what may be a scintilla of what may pertain to knowledge wisdom learning and pertinence not the pettiness that is Wikipedia. THE ANTI_WIKI FOR I AM NOT FOOL --Andrew Zito 04:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

DELETE - unknown and irrelevant person; author (Sloan) is a psychopath who cannot distinguish fact from fiction. (Jürgen R.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.152.22.177 (talk • contribs).

BLANK VOTE - Many professional biographers have noted the problems of including even insignificant persons in a biographic dictionary ("what is the use of this long procession of the hopelessly insignificant? Why repeat the familiar formula about the man who was born on such a day, was ‘educated at the grammar school of his native town,’ graduated in such a year, became fellow of his college, took a living, married, published a volume of sermons which nobody has read for a century or two, and has been during all that time in his churchyard? Can he not be left in peace ..."). Their problem is, on the other hand, almost always related to the lack of space in printed editions -- if Wikipedia suffers even remotely from such a problem, the solution is not to refuse to accept material. My second concern is the relevance of the subject: this is not something to be voted over, unless the voters can be assumed to be reasonably knowledgeable about the context (contemporary chess afairs), as well as fairly unprejudiced towards the subject well as the author. I strongly suspect many voters on this topic vote largely because of lack of confidence in the author. If Wikipedia is to be taken seriously, a more stringent method to decide the inclusion of a particular name is required. I can't decide from the context if the voting is to deny the subject, or deny the article on that subject. In any case, when the subject is judged it should be done impartially. My third concern is with the article: I believe that a biography of any kind needs much more than this particular article shows ... but I also believe that neither biographers nor Wikipedia-authors are born ready-made. A process frpm draft to finished article seems to be called for. Wikipedia must have a procedure for handling these situations: and that must be considered by all parts as impartial and trustworthy. (A. Thulin)

That essay belongs in a discussion of grand wikipedia policy, not a vfd about a particular article. Right now the policy is that non-noteworthy biographies get deleted and there's guidelines for establishing noteworthiness. Debating whether the policy and guidelines are good belongs somewhere else. The vfd discussion is simply about whether Dorsch meets the guidelines. Phr 11:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

DELETE - While Tom Dorsch was a notable figure in the United States Chess Federation, the article as written provides practically no coverage of the issues that made Dorsch important. Instead, the author relates us with tales of Dorsch's activities and proclivities from long ago, which have very little relevance or place in an encyclopedia. Sloan has often written disparaging comments about Dorsch -- and vice versa. It serves no purpose to accept his characterizations of Dorsch as anywhere near accurate enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. As a United States chess player and former executive board member of the United States Chess Federation, I think it would be a travesty to allow this interpretation of Dorsch stand.

DELETE - Mr. Sloan is using Wikipedia for settling scores and posting his delusions of greatness. Have you folks learned nothing from the Siegenthaler debacle?

• Delete Doesn't seem that notable and original author seems to revert any attempt at clean up, therefore can see no hope of this becoming a substantial cited NPOV article --pgk^(talk) 14:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you paying attention? You just made six changes and I did not revert any of them. I did, however, add three paragraphs to the top which better explain why Tom Dorsch is a notable person. Every tournament chess player in the world has heard of Tom Dorsch. Are you one of them? Sam Sloan 15:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

This is the diff from the "current" version to the one after I made my first edit to remove the paragraph saying Sloan didn't believe that Dorsch was involved in the JFK assassination attempt (since it wasn't suggested anywhere else that he was, saying he wasn't seemed odd). This is the diff from my last edit to the current version where indeed you undo more of my edits, including removal of the cleanup tag. So yes I was paying attention. --pgk^(talk) 16:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean. However, I did not intentionally remove the cleanup tag. I am not sure how that happened, but it does seem that sometimes changes are made that do not show up in the "history".

I have no objection to any real clean-up. I have not reverted any of your changes. I do object when Rook_wave, JoanneB and Janeth, none of whom know anything about chess, try to delete the entire article. Sam Sloan 16:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. The article is almost complete nonsense, utterly inaccurate, and defamatory.

DELETE - Articles which are about mostly unknown minor officials in sporting associations, have no place on Wikipedia. Particularly ones which are badly written, and are there for the wrong reasons. I would think it hard to believe that there would be anybody else who would be prepared to rewrite this, or replace it with another article.

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.