Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoffrey Borg

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 delete. Proto::type 10:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geoffrey Borg

Previously speedied as making no claim of notability. User:Sam Sloan recently poosted on Usenet that he has re-created every chess player article of his which has been deleted. There is not much here to establish the importance of the subject. Just zis Guy you know? 12:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete NN and was deleted before. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 12:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Meets CSD G4: [1] MER-C 13:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Circumstances have changed, and page content differs quite a bit from the previously deleted version. Previously, he was just a candidate amongst others for the office; now indeed he has been elected. Borderline noteable as Vice President of FIDE, completely unnotable as a chess player. It seems that his election came as a surprise. (See the extlks I added.) Lupo 13:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is claimed on usenet that this author is being singled out and everything he writes removed. Looking at this article, I can't see any justification for deletion. I am inclined to think it may be a personal vendatta of someone that is doing this. Drkirkby 01:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think being a VP of FIDE or president of a national chess federation (especially a minor federation) reaches Wikipedia's standard of notability all by itself. They are just functionary positions. We don't have articles about vice presidents of the NBA, which is a much more famous organization than FIDE. And organizations like the Malta Chess Federation are so obscure that even an article about the organization itself (much less one of its functionaries) would be of dubious notability.

  If Borg actually does something notable sometime, then we can put up a new article. Phr (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment To Drkirkby: there's no vendetta; Sloan has put up several dozen articles on Wikipedia (some of them wildly inappropriate) and only half a dozen or so of them have been deleted, either for non-notability (campaign biographies of obscure chess people who were running for FIDE office, speedied for copying from the campaign web sites) or ridiculous attack articles full of baseless charges (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Dorsch). Other articles of his that were full of nonsense (see the edit history of Edward G. Winter for example) have been cleaned up by other editors, and Sloan refers to that as "vandalism". Please try to understand what you're dealing with before coming to Sloan's defense. Susan Polgar's recent remarks [2] might give you an idea. Phr (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm, it does look like User:JzG is going through Wikipedia cleaning up a lot of Sloan's edits, mostly for good reason (link spam, etc.) and this AfD is part of that cleanup. I still don't see a vendetta since I don't think JzG and Sloan have had any direct conflict. Sloan has really been a problematic editor at times. Phr (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete

My name is Włodzimierz Holsztyński (to avoid any suspicion of an anonymous action). In my opinion the wikipedia posts should be adorned by a weight parameter, which would make it easier to search both for the relevant and irrelevant information. On a scale from 0 to 1000 (one thousand), biographical posts about Archimedes, Newton, Gauss, Galois, Niels Abel, Riemann, Poincare, Hilbert and Einstein would have weight 1000 (one thousand, the max). The weight of a biography on Geoffrey Borg can be maximum 1 (one), granted that it is well researched and well written. Then I would vote for keeping it (providing that weight=1 would be attached to such a post). But there is no need for a sloppy version of an article of such a low importance and quality. To be specific, the article doesn't say since when Geoffrey Borg is holding any of the mentioned positions. This should be clearly stated (and not left to a reader's deduction process). The information about Geoffrey Borg being a FIDE VP, and about his candidacy for the treasurer post, is a confusing combination, which should be clarified by an explicit description of what has happened.

To allow this kind of junk on Wikipedia creates a danger that ninety or more percent of entries will be equally poor, rending Wikipedia unusable. Certain minimum should be assumed even with the understanding that an article might be improved later on.

Let me stress that my view is constructive; I consider wikipedia to be a (potentially) outstandingly useful source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.66.34 (talk • contribs)

• Comment Włodzimierz is a regular participant of the Usenet chess politics group (Sloan-related Wikipedia issues often spill over to there) and follows chess stuff pretty closely, but he's obviously new to Wikipedia for purposes of determining consensus. I do think his assessment of the article is pretty good. Phr (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2006 (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.