Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Watson (Scrabble player)

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. Big Dom 14:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Watson (Scrabble player)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Scrabble player who once won a national championship. That one event doesn't work out to notability or deserving of an encyclopedia article in my book. PlusPlusDave (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not a matter of just deserts or personal opinion — it is instead all about being noticed. The subject's achievement is documented in several real books and so it is notable. There is more to be done here and it is our editing policy to persevere rather than deleting. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems at least marginally notable, as per this] LA times article and the mention in Letterati. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So we are clear, it is a passing mention (one sentence) that refers to Robert Watson, with no real detail about the person at all beyond his profession and that he won scrabble tournament once. There is nothing of substance in that article to build a biographical article, do you disagree? I await your response. PlusPlusDave (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - per Colonel Warden.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; seems at a similar level of notability as many other articles about reasonably obscure people have gone unchallenged - I see nothing which makes this different. Krollo (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2011 (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.