Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borislav Ivanov

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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Borislav Ivanov

Borislav Ivanov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Technical nomination only. Fixing a malformed nomination by Chesszorro. (talk) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. A note on the article's talk page refers to a previous AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todor Dankov , which appears to relate to a footballer by the same name, not this chess player. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A non-notable chess player without any real sport or other achievments. FM is not enough to get a Wikipedia article. Usually IMs or GMs are supposed to get an article here. Chesszorro (talk) 05:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Ivanov has become an absolutely notorious figure in the last year. Plenty of articles have been written in reliable media sources concerning Ivanov's exploits. Ivanov's latest escapades in his 4.Oct chess tournament have been extensively covered in the press. This might be a bad-faith retaliatory nomination also, as the Bulgarian Chess Master
  Youtube. Fishface gurl (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep.Chess Master Ivanov's brazen and infamous cheating has created a sensation in the chess world and made news beyond. This, combined with his bold personality, have made him something of a media sensation in his native Bulgaria. The game of Chess may never be quite the same after his exploits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.87.62.17 (talk) 07:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, significant coverage [1] [2] [3]. The unspecified and unproven manner in which Ivanov was suspected of cheating is of greater lasting interest than which titles he did or didn't achieve along the way. ―cobaltcigs 07:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per significant coverage in both specialist and non-specialist sources, including [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] and [18]. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: a significant example of chronic cheating at high level professional chess; there was significant response from other OTB chess professionals, several dozens refused to play at tournaments where he was playing; significant discussion in serious circles by chess professionals, fraud and cheating professionals, and statisticians specializing in chess fraud. The poster who wrote above that this case may change the face of professional chess' approach to cheating is probably correct; this is a significant case of brazen, bold, cheating. Several technologies and disciplines have been engaged to detect it. And thank you to Toccata quarta above for providing a fine example of how to cite sources. Talkingfacts (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talkingfacts (talk • contribs) 18:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Easily meets Wikipedia's notability standards. Sasata (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As detailed above by me, easily meets any standard of notability.Talkingfacts (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Very widespread coverage in international media, even in non-chess specialist media. This is not a single event, but a series of events. Note that the Youtube coverage by Lilov is not a reliable source (it is one player's opinion, self-published), and should not be used in the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 04:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Lilov's analyses of Ivanov's cheating games are helpful instruction in understanding how to detect Ivanov's cheating. Although they are self-published, they have been embedded by chessbase, which is a reliable source, in its news items on the Ivanov scandal. The content in Lilov's videos is reliable; it is composed of two things; 1. analysis of how Ivanov's moves are computer moves, and not human moves, and 2. analysis of how the consistent amount of time Ivanov took for each move is not human-like, but computer-like. There is discussion of Lilov's notablity in Lilov's Afd discussion page, and I have commented extensively there on this subject. In my humble opinion, the Lilov videos are not central to the Ivanov scandal; rather, they popularize it, and provide useful instruction to the news content. This is not an appropriate place to discuss whether one source or another is a reliable source for Ivanov's bio. This is a discussion of Ivanov's notablity, and the consensus is overwhelming that he is notable, and should not be deleted. Talkingfacts (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. His cheating - whether he actually did it - is notable enough, there are sources.
  Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 19:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong keep. Notable (the main newspapers in his native Bulgaria and in other countries have covered his case and he has appeared on popular talkshows), not only due to the cheating allegations, but also because of his rapid rise in chess and results achieved against experienced grandmasters (there is absolutely no concrete evidence against him, so the victories attained by Ivanov cannot be declared null and void).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.85.7.102 (talk) 08:23, 20 October 2013 (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.