Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindemburg Melão Jr.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. - Philippe 02:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hindemburg Melão Jr.

There was a contested prod for this article (the prod had been placed by User:DGG as "non-notable chess player and self-styled genius"). Lots of claims to notability in the text of the article but on closer inspection it does not seem to me that they hold up. 1)The high IQ societies stuff: the societies mentioned themselves are not notable. 2) Guinness records (longest checkmate in a blindfold match or something like that). Possibly notable, I am not sure. Does not seem to have received substantial mention or coverage anywhere else except for a mention in the Correspondense Chess News article mentioned in this WP entry. Still, could be the strongest claim to notability but I am not sure what to make of it. Guinness has a lot of weird and not notable stuff like people with the longest nose or whatever. 3) Possibly a notable chess player. Again, based on the sources presented, it does not quite look like that to me. The same Correspondense Chess News article mentions that his FIDE ranking is quite low, at 2164. He does not seem to hold a Grandmaster rank or even an International Master or a FIDE Master (at least I have not seen it mentioned anywhere). 4) There are a few more things in the entry like inventing some new IQ test and some kind of new university exam tests but these claims are thin on references and do not appear to be notable. GoogleNews (all dates) gives 2 hits[1]. A little bit of everything in this article but it is not clear if any of it adds up to notability per WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 04:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete :I do not often use the word vanity, but this is one of the times. We are not an extension of Guinness; and less than notable in a lot of things adds up to less than notable. That would be if everybody put the best face possible on their resume and added it up in some numerical fashion, as a ranking, but we mean having some notable accomplishment. DGG (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as per the nomination and DGG. I would regard even a FIDE Master, without more, as non-notable, and he's apparently not even that. Membership in Mensa and the like is surely non-notable. This is an article desperately in search of a reason for existing. 15:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Krakatoa (talk)
    • Having read the Correspondence Chess News article on Melão and having looked in Chess Informant, he sounds somewhat more notable than I gave him credit for. He had a game (Melão-Van Unen) that made the list of the 30 best games (tied for 17th-20th) in Chess Informant, Volume 80, and a different game (W. Bunk-Melão) that made the list of the top 10 theoretical novelties (10th), also in Chess Informant, Volume 80. See Chess Informant, Volume 81, pp. 6-7. Those are hard lists to make, especially for someone who's not well-known. The late International Grandmaster Edmar Mednis wrote in a letter to me, which I have someplace, that "Chess Informant is a very status-conscious publication" (they nonetheless published the game I had sent to Mednis, and ranked it 8th-9th on the list of theoretical novelties).
    • A search of ratings on the International Correspondence Chess Federation website shows that Melão is an inactive player with a rating of 2489 (ID No. 70781). 2489 is a high rating (if he were an active player, a 2555 rating would place him number 200 in the world, so 2489 would probably be in the world top 300 -- again, if he were an active player). I cannot find him on any of the lists of ICCF title-holders (Grandmaster, Senior International Master, International Master). If he had an ICCF Grandmaster title, I would consider that notable; lesser titles, arguably notable -- but he appears to have no ICCF title. Based on his current accomplishments, I would say he is non-notable and adhere to my "Delete" recommendation. Krakatoa (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Here is his FIDE rating information. It says that he has no title, so is not a master. Bubba73 (talk), 16:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete His chess accomplishments are not notable. His FIDE rating is really low (lower than a lot of members of the Wikiproject Chess, for a start). He could become strong in correspondence chess one day, but it still has to be. The claim about "one of the best novelty" is just vanity. SyG (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as non notable.--Berig (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment How does someone with a ELO 2489 rating not become an FM or an IM? Quite unusual, but not notable for the chess. This guy might be notable for whatever record is suppose to be in the Guinness book of record, although it doesn't say any more to help find out. SunCreator (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • As I explained below, 2489 is his correspondence rating, not his FIDE rating. I don't know how ICCF's system works but I assume that if he'd played correspondence chess for a longer period of time, he could have become a correspondence IM or better. (They don't seem to have a correspondence FM title.) btw, since it's not named after the Electric Light Orchestra but after Arpad Elo, it's "Elo rating," not "ELO rating." :-) Krakatoa (talk) 03:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, it should be Elo, habit makes the mistake. Same thing in much chess literature like BCM. SunCreator (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. I believe his ELO is 2164 not 2489, or am I missing something? Brittle heaven (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not-notable. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Guiness stuff, non-notable and vanity —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tosqueira (talk • contribs) 18:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable! --Nice poa (talk) 07:44, 12 May 2008 (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.