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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-30 05:01Z

Eugene Nalimov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable biography with little potential for expansion. Computer chess is an interesting field of research, but Nalimov is only a footnote. It is difficult to accurately assess the importance of Nalimov tablebases to chess computing in general, as the format is likely to become an intermediary to some greater solution. The only posited proof of notability, the ChessBase award, is more of a symbollic gesture offered by a small company to up-and-coming enthusiast researchers. It is not a notable award in the chess world and it is not granted by a major chess publication. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. MER-C 09:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per nom; the only question I had was to the notability of the ChessBase award, and based on the nominator and what I can find on it online, its notability appears weak in terms of granting notability to the subject of this article. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. ChessBase is probably the most important maker of chess programs (their Fritz (chess) played with the World Champion Kramnik recently, and won) and chess databases. And Nalimov is well known in the chess computing circles.--Ioannes Pragensis 23:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Since we have a dispute between the nominator and Ioannes Pragensis as to the notability of the award in question, and assuming that each assertion is made in good faith, why not risk error on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion. The rest of the nomination criteria seems to be based on primary research or subjective opinions of the nominator niether of which is a valid argument in the Wikipedia world. In reading through many google hits, it seems that Nalimov is a chess celebrity and this is not a vanity article. --Kevin Murray 06:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Kevin Murray. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep There is no harm of keeping it. meta:Wiki_is_not_paper and disk space is cheap. This article will probably be recreated in the future if it is deleted. 71.175.41.54 15:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with Kevin Murray and above --BenWhitey 03:18, 30 December 2006 (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.