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 to delete leaning towards Keep. The improvements made by Nsk92 have persuaded some that the article meets the notability guideline but others remain unconvinced. Davewild (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Walker (checkers player)[edit]

I'm not sure this was ever notable even though I created it. The museum Walker created might be notable, although it was destroyed[1], but it's not clear to me now why I thought he was.--T. Anthony (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Due to improvements I'm now officially neutral. It might be worth keeping even, but I'm thinking it's not yet vital to withdraw. However I suggest that those who voted "speedy" look at the article's current state.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G7 TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 15:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep. New cites establish notability, even though the prose could be improve. However, passes WP:N and WP:V. Meets WP:BIO : A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published Plenty of secondary sources. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 18:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

' Delete' per nom Keep The article has been expanded over the last several days, with sufficient information to show notability and, more importantly, sources for verification. User:Nsk92's improvements have persuaded me that Walker is notable enough. Mandsford (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC) It's worth noting that T. Anthony, the nominator, had created the article and has reconsidered it. There have been subsequent edits, with a difference of opinion as to whether a federal money laundering charge should or should not be included along with his checkers achievements. He doesn't strike me as being famous or infamous, though there may someday be something written about checkers players who "made the jump" over to organized crime. Look for Crown Me in bookstores in 2010. Mandsford (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete, as there's no little evidence of notability outside of the checkers museum, and being convicted of money laundering, neither of which confers especial notability on the man himself ~~and never has been~~. I tend to agree with Jkp212 here, though the improvements by Nsk92 have improved what's there currently. I would support a page move and rewrite to an article about the Checkers Hall of Fame, with mention of Walker, but not a stand-alone article about Walker himself. S. Dean Jameson 15:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete not notable --Jkp212 (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not speedy. The crime is nonnotable; the ministership is in a very marginally notable denomination, "International Christian Church" (see International Church of Christ); state champion in a notable game is nonnotable (otherwise I'd be notable). However, the hall of fame is notable (e.g., hosted a US-UK championship in 1995 [2], was in Ripley's BION) and should have its own article; but there's no point in voting rename with this content. JJB 16:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep okay call me crazy on this one, but for some reason the "Founder of the International Checkers Hall of Fame" just seems to be strangely, uniquely, and verifiably notable. It certainly is worthy of further discussion and should not be a speedy (unless the information is fabricated in some way or otherwise harmful).--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this isn't a speedy.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A self-given title does not make a person inherently notable. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable. Sunderland06 (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Look at this-[3]]. The guy is a living treasure. Founder of a museum voted one of the "most boring" in America. Legitimate state checker champion turned religious leader turned money launderer for drug dealers. The museum catches fire and his family is living in a trailer in the ex-museums driveway while he sips orange juice in federally subsidized housing. I say KEEP and give me a week to flush out the article. This guy is a Grade B L. Ron Hubbard.John celona (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asking to preserve an article because you think it'll be fun to smear someone is an exercise in very poor judgment. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I said the museum might be notable. An article on it can still be created if this is deleted. Said article would pretty much have to mention him.--T. Anthony (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Badly written; no assertion of notability. However, I did fine reliable sources such as this one that indicate that this person may be notable. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 23:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice against re-creation. There may be some hidden notability here, as hinted above, but I'm just not seeing it yet. If multiple non-trivial publications can be located about this subject then by all means, please try again. RFerreira (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Yes, it is a poorly written stab, but the subject is definitely notable and the story is just too precious, as John celona rightly noted. In addition to the sources he cited, GoogleNews returns 84 hits "Charles Walker" checkers[4]. Quite a few of them provide detailed and in-depth coverage of the subject, such as [5][6][7][8][9][10], etc. GoogleBooks returns 21 hits for the same search[11]. No doubt about notability here; the article needs clean-up and to have references added, of course, but that is not a reason for deletion. Nsk92 (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have added some info and references to the article. I'll add some more. Nsk92 (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything noteworthy there is about the checkers museum. You should definitely create an article on that, and certainly can mention Walker there. However, there is just not enough Biographical info about this man. --Jkp212 (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. First, even in the articles about the Hall of Fame there is a great deal of specific biographical coverage of Walker himself. For example, the LA Times article[12]discussed his childhood (that he started building his fortune by selling newspapers at the age of 7), his private life (his dog, his bedroom, his philosophy, etc). Similarly, for example, the Atlanta Journal Constitution article[13] again has quite a bit of personal biographical info about him, including discussion about his childhood, his father-in-law, his business career, his philosophy, etc. There is quite a bit of biographical info like that in other references also, a lot more than we usually require for BLP articles. Second, quite a bit of coverage relates to Walker and his activities outside of the Hall of Fame. For example, there are newspaper articles about his personal checkers victories and his Guinness world record, such as [14][15]. There is also quite a bit of coverage of his other activities on promoting checkers, e.g. his role in organizing the Man vs Machine World Championships in the 1990s. E.g. this book[16] has quite a bit of stuff regarding his role in these AI matches, as well as his character, temperament, etc, see pages 107, 115-117, 167, 179, 187-191, 197-198, 202-203, 205, 224-225, 227-228, 251, 274, 377, 412, 431. Then, of course, there is significant news-coverage, both local and national, of his arrest, trial and conviction. Again, the arrest was not Hall of Fame related and, as the sources mention, it ultimately resulted from an investigation into his insurance business.

There is more than enough here to satisfy WP:BIO, as its key requirement is:"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Clearly, that is the case here. Whether or not any one of us thinks that he is actually worthy of the coverage he received is irrelevant. The important thing is that he did received this coverage and hence is notable. Nsk92 (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions are great, but they are much more appropriately placed in an article about the Hall of Fame. The biographical stuff, even in the sources you cited, is marginal at best. The content is best placed in an article about the truly notable thing here, the checkers hall of fame. --Jkp212 (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Deletion rubs me the wrong way. There is no need to delete this article. Keep it. Albion moonlight (talk) 10:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually have any reasoning for keeping the article, other than that deletion "rubs [you] the wrong way"? This doesn't seem to be a valid "keep" rationale. S. Dean Jameson 15:05, 5 July 2008 (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.