Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umakant Sharma

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. Majorly (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Umakant Sharma

Umakant Sharma (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notability: all this man has done is to cheat at chess: at best this is an ephemeral story; it is not at all notable and he is not at all notable in wiki terms. Springnuts 06:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete. WP:BIO requires either a professional competition or the "highest level" of amateur competion; according to the news sources, he was only competing at a club/regional level when discovered, rather than a national level. I think that brings him below the threshold of notability. Tevildo 06:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• WP:BIO's guideline that he compete at the highest level is only one criteria for inclusion, and the fact that he doesn't compete at that level does not exclude him from an entry. The multiple-media coverage of him does. Tarinth 18:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep (as main article contributor) - WP:BIO says that an individual must be in multiple, non trivial sources. THe story was linked to on the main page of CNN.COM in the technology section. The references section gets information from the article from 4 sources that are pretty reliable. WP:BIO also says, "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated." While cheating at chess is not being assasinated, his involvement gave him notoriety in an newsworthy event (being covered by several sites and online newspaper). Google news serch comes up with 66 stories. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 06:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• The article said he started with a rating of 1933 and increased over 500 points to 1484. Surely these numbers are garbled or reversed. I also don't know what the Indian ratings mean. But if he is less than a master both before and after, he is not notable as a chess player. Perhaps some of this material could be incorporated in an article on cheating in chess, though.--OinkOink 06:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - THe numbers were a typo, I fixed that up. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

  • His final rating was actually 2484 - this has now been corrected. Tevildo 17:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Its one of the cases where the subject is famous (or rather got a lot of publicity from non-trivial sources) but NOT notable. Its a "slow news day" filler story, like "man gets foot stuck in grate, causes traffic jam". In such a case, although the story gets published everywhere, the person is clearly not notable. At best, this person gets a mention in the cheating article.

• The fact that you don't think he's famous, or that you think his press coverage qualifies as "slow news day" stories is not relavent to notability. Tarinth 18:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

--Eqdoktor 09:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, it may be a slow news day article, but it still got mentions in major newspapers and websites. That makes him notable, I think. Lankiveil 11:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
• Weak Delete. He is a regional player, who plays for Southern Railways. Although he has been covered widely by the newspapers on December 27 2006, he will soon be forgotten. This is news, not encyclopedic material; should be covered at Wikinews. Jyothisingh 12:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• You have know way of knowing that he'll soon be forgotten; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. He's made himself notable due to extensive press coverage. Tarinth 18:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The main content of the article is notable, but the person is not. Agreeing with OinkOink that the information belongs in a more general article, I went ahead and recycled it into a new article on Cheating in chess which parallels Cheating in poker. Thanks to User:Chrislk02 for writing up this interesting and well-verified incident. Nesbit 17:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• He's notable because the press coverage focused on him, the player, not the issue of cheating in chess in general. Tarinth 18:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - aint this up for DYK ? Bakaman 17:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. .Bakaman 17:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep He's been noted multiple times in the media. Deletion potentially smacks of ethnocentrism (most of the media sources are from India). Nothing mentioned in the nomination is a valid reason for removal. It sounds like a notable item in the history of chess playing. All of the arguments above that argued for deletion are based on the subjective opinion that this person is either ephemeral (how would you know? we're not a crystal ball) or that he's "just a regional player," which isn't relavent to the fact that he's made himself notable by other things (cheating). Tarinth 18:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete subject is not notable, and is only different from others because he got caught cheating. ST47Talk 18:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

  COmment - It was notable enough for coverage by several reliable news source. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

  Comment The information is notable, but functions more effectively in an article on Cheating in chess than a biography. It's hard to imagine a bio on Umakant Sharma ever attaining FA status, unless he further distinguishes himself by other "achievements." The subject of the news reports is the incident, not the person, and it is the incident which is notable. Nesbit 06:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep anyone with rating 2484  Doctor Bruno  19:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment even though I'm making a case for Keep, his rating, which he obtained unfairly, means nothing Citicat 20:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep Being banned on this level, and the circumsances, make this a notable occurence. If there was an article "chess cheats" or "chess controversies" this could be merged, but until then it should be left. Citicat 20:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

okay Redirect to Cheating in chess. But that article needs to be expanded to justify it. Citicat 00:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep Article is backed by several (strong) non-trivial sources – OK, so subject is notable because of what he did rather than what he is, but that is besides the point. Notable (or is that notorious?) nevertheless. Bubba hotep 20:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I was leaning towards Keep until Nesbit created the page for Cheating. Seems like a good solution. I wonder - would it be appropriate to link to/from the page on The Turk?[1] Bourne 23:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A wholly non-notable chess player. Being caught cheating, which is a 24-hour news story, does not make him any more notable. Indeed, as he cannot now compete, he becomes even less notable.--Anthony.bradbury 00:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Encyclopedic notability not established. Wikipedia is not a news report archive Bwithh 02:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Cheating in chess. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - he may not be notable as a chess player, but his actions have made him notable as a chess cheat. Multiple independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources] exist to provide for verifiability. Mering into Cheating in chess gives undue weight in the article to this one single incident. -- Whpq 17:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is essentially a synopsis of news stories, which WP:NOT for. We don't have bios on every random criminal who gets arrested and his mugshot printed in the local press, either. Sandstein 11:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - This story was not just covered by local press. It has had coverage across the world. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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.