Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of strong chess tournaments

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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of strong chess tournaments

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No evidence provided that this list has any notability. No in-line sources provided. There is no indication of how the term "strongest" should be defined or whether this is simply WP:OR of whoever contributes. Without any clear-cut rationale this is little more than an incomplete directory listing dependent on the whims of the contributing editors. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 03:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just what is a "strong" chess tournament? This is just absurdity, it's nothing more than an indiscriminately selected list of tournaments by users. Fails WP:NOR and WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 08:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's lots of coverage of chess tournaments and so the topic passes WP:LISTN. Focussing on the strong ones is sensible and it's easy to do this in a reasonably objective way because chess has a well-organised rating system and so FIDE has a category system based on the average Elo rating of the players. Andrew D. (talk) 11:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been doing a lot of editing on this page as I've noticed a lot of mid-tier tournaments/team tournaments etc on the page and have been trying to apply more objective criteria to it, with a strong tournament being those with at least two top 10 players. However, the official ratings lists only goes back to 1971 and for anything before that, I've had to refer to Chessmetrics ratings lists which is far from perfect. And I understand that even this attempt for 'objectivity' can be rather arbitrary. Qindarka (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that it’s not entirely satisfactory. When I started this article, I included only those tournaments that were judged the strongest throughout time by the authors of relevant encyclopedia and magazine articles (see refs). It was important to me to be reflecting expert opinion. However, being practical, it is impossible to stop editors from adding to it, and of course, expert opinion varies with whatever selection criteria is used. It should also be noted, that many of the foreign language Wikis carry a similar list; the German one is particularly extensive and detailed. It’s a very nice piece of work, but like the others, has no properly defined criteria for inclusion, and so doesn’t help us. I’m not sure what the long term answer is. Maybe User:Qindarka’s recent pruning, to include only tournaments with minimum two top ten players has been a good compromise, provided it is policed, but I can’t see that article deletion is a positive way forward. It seems to me that a list of this type has a rightful place in any chess related encyclopedia and indeed, some of the most important specialist printed books have their own version … such as ‘’The Chess Kings: Vol. 1’’, by Olsen, and ‘’Guiness Chess: The Records’’, by Whyld. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands per WP:LISTN for being indiscriminate but probably better to Draftify/rename and make the list discriminate, as they say. SportingFlyer T·C 18:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has format problems and could use better citations, but the general topic is notable. "Strong chess tournaments" are those with many of the strongest players in the world participating - there may be room to improve the title. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no objective or particularly well-defined criteria. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How would this article differ from a "List of strong U.S. Presidents" that was based on undefined criteria? Such an article would be deleted as WP:OR, as should this. If this was a list of strong chess tournaments as recognised by FIDE (or other notable organisation, or notable chess writer), then we have an article. However, as currently written, we don't. Britishfinance (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Britishfinance. Needs less arbitrary and ad box criteria for membership. Edison (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - any list where the inclusion criteria are defined and then followed by the words "Inevitably, this introduces a degree of subjectivity" is clearly based on OR. Article should be deleted and potentially replaced with an article on top chess tournaments based on clearly defined and unequivocal, preferably statistical, criteria (if that is possible) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is no List of chess tournaments; perhaps the concerns that "strong" is subjective can be solved by renaming this? power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think a rename would be a good start. The only real problem as noted is the fact it uses an arbitrary guideline for inclusion. It's not a bad article and I'd like to see it at worst draftified, in spite of my delete vote, as it would be easier to fix this article than it would be to delete it outright and start fresh. SportingFlyer T·C 22:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, the "Major recurring tournaments" should be on a List of chess tournaments, that section looks fairly good. There's no great value in a list of each individual tourney blue-link; there's a category for those pages. The full per-year table with winners is probably best moved to a draft for now. I doubt that the format that currently exists will work; a version with references, dates of the tournament, etc. will probably need to be broken down by decade (and would require tens of hours of work; hours that I don't have right now). power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely fair. Changed my vote to draftify, since this shouldn't be on mainspace as it stands, and could easily be on mainspace if properly modified. SportingFlyer T·C 03:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've moved the per-year table to a draft in my userspace User:power~enwiki/Chess; the remaining article looks a lot better in mainspace. If somebody objects, they can revert; but I think it's clear the consensus is that the long list is not ready for mainspace in its current form. I also note List of mini chess tournaments, which has worse problems and may need a separate AfD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clarify criteria, which may have multiple factors and may have changed over time. Remove the "Major recurring tournaments" section since that is duplicated in the template. Change the default to "show" for that template. The exception would be if that section was made into a table with start and end year and maybe some other notes (e.g. # of contestants, avg rating, GM players, country, ref for strong,…). StrayBolt (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are some refs for recent mentions of "strong chess tournaments".[1][2][3][4][5][6] StrayBolt (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nobody doubts that the phrase "strong chess tournaments" is used, but this article needs to be deleted in the same way that an article titled "List of strong U.S. Presidents" would be deleted. Would be nice to have an article listing all the tournaments with a "rating above X", however this is not such an article. Britishfinance (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2019 (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.