Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Bagrationi (chess)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Participants were unable to agree on whether the subject meets a relevant notability standard, and to some extent even on what the relevant standard is. RL0919 (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Bagrationi (chess)[edit]

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

Alexander Bagrationi (chess) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence found that he is notable, nothing beyond routine coverage found. Fram (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Israel, and Ukraine. Fram (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject has not received substantial coverage in indepdent reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has an entry in Berdichevsky's Jewish Chess Encyclopedia; that and the ChessOK bio which is also cited in the article constitute significant coverage. Chess grandmasters can typically be presumed notable per WP:NCHESS. Somebody with access to Ukrainian, Russian, and Hebrew print media (chess websites in these languages tend not to have long half-lives) would likely be able to find more. Cobblet (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NCHESS and coverage in the form of game analysis [1]. EternalNomad (talk) 05:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. NCHESS is not a guideline and has zero standing in deletion discussions. Having an entry in an encyclopedic dictionary devoted to a subset of a subset of people is not by itself indicative of notability absent someone showing coverage therein is actually significant. The ChessOK article has no byline, so there is no way to tell if it is reliable and independent. And the idea that written game analysis (in what seems to be a blog-like post by a pseudonymous chess.com member, not a staff writer) consisting of "The Alexander Bagrationi (2485) vs. Dmitry Skorchenko (2487) game is another example of no queen but rampaging minor pieces" constitutes anything other than a trivial mention is absurd. Can someone find a source that demonstrably meets all the requirements of GNG? JoelleJay (talk) 01:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A GM is a top professional in chess, and there are only <2000 of them in the world. We have articles on not only every current and former MP but also every member of any state legislature in any country in the world, so I see no reason not to keep an article on one of the 2000 top chess players in the world. 172.58.110.253 (talk) 06:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The only parameter that matters here is whether he meets GNG. It's irrelevant how many GMs there are or which other professions have WP representation (WP:OTHERSTUFF) since neither of those is a notability criterion. I don't know where or in what languages @Fram looked for sources, but if a standard BEFORE didn't turn anything up then there is reason to assume he has not received the requisite coverage for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 02:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This may be true but it is not relevant. What is relevant is that it receives the standard of notability of WP:GNG PaulPachad (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to prompt policy based consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As WP:NSPORT is silent on chess, as WP:NCHESS uses similar logic to other sports and games, WP:NCHESS seems like a very reasonable benchmark to compare the article against. WP:NSPORT FAQ Q4 guides us towards being more flexible when it will take time to establish notability due to language issues. I think the editors using WP:NCHESS to help inform decisions are being logical and also following guidelines very similar to WP:NSPORT] and so I agree with them. CT55555 (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    NCHESS is not an acceptable benchmark as it has not been vetted by the wider community for its accuracy in predicting GNG. For it to be added to NSPORT, and therefore be usable in deletion discussions, it would need to demonstrated that 95%+ of all subjects meeting its criteria also meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you quoting 95% from a guideline? CT55555 (talk) 04:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    95% is the standard used when developing sport-specific subguidelines. However all NSPORT subjects must ultimately individually meet the GNG so in this situation it doesn't matter whether he meets NCHESS or NSPORT, the requirement is still SIGCOV in multiple reliable, secondary, independent sources. JoelleJay (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone could disagree with you there...I just think that NSPORT directs us to:
    1. consider that people of a certain calibre are likely notable
    2. give time to allow notability to be established, to be generous with that time, and to be more generous when non-English sources are the norm
    That's what I'm arguing for. I think that is clear. I think the less clear bit is if NCHESS is as dependable as NSPORT. i.e. is NCHESS' "Grandmaster" rule comparable with the 95% norm. I think it is. CT55555 (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not aware of an article on a GM ever being deleted; significant coverage is nearly always found when a player reaches that level. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, NCHESS or at least the GM criterion may very well be an excellent predictor of coverage. But since it's not at SNG-level yet, and since NSPORT does not apply to non-athletes, the notability standard for Bagrationi is GNG (or ANYBIO). So it's still necessary for GNG sourcing to be produced just as it would be for any other BLP. JoelleJay (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And FWIW, I've searched "Александр", "Александра", "Аарона", and "Аарон" "Багратиони" + "гроссмейстера" and "шахматного" and found nothing beyond passing mentions (like here, here, and here, here, and here). JoelleJay (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NCHESS is the best we've got to go on here, and he is a Grandmaster, giving the presumption of meeting WP:GNG. Jacona (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no policy- or guideline-based reason to presume GNG is met through becoming a GM. We have no evidence that this is the case (or that it isn't), so the metric we have to use is whether he currently meets GNG. The sources in the article are iffy, reliability-wise, which is why I haven't !voted yet, and why it's necessary we discuss the only applicable P&G (GNG) rather than asserting notability is inherently met. JoelleJay (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I agree with this comment of JoelleJay PaulPachad (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ANYBIO#1. WP:NBASIC is not the only reason that one might presume notability for a person; WP:BIO explicitly assumes the notability of a person who has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. The title of Grandmaster in Chess, as the IP alluded to on May 24, is one such a well-known and significant honor. There are lots of people who point towards WP:NCHESS here and, while it's a project-level consensus, I think the argument from ANYBIO is stronger. The arguments for delete are generally something along the line of "fails GNG", which is moot if the individual passes WP:ANYBIO as WP:N explicitly considers article subjects who meet either the general notability guideline (GNG)... or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline as being notable provided that the article does not violate WP:NOT. As such, the article subject is notable and the article should be kept. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Does that still apply to a title that is (now) automatically conferred based on achievement, rather than awarded through subjective assessment by other people (e.g. the way an IEEE fellowship or Fields medal is)? I thought the point of using the received language, rather than the less restrictive "achieved", was to ensure a recipient's merits were actually specifically discussed by a secondary body and determined to be worthy. JoelleJay (talk) 02:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The first iteration of the relevant part of WP:ANYBIO appears to have its origin in this edit, which didn't really have a lot of concurrent discussion (it was a generalization of something originally applied to creative professionals). But I don't think that there has been an understanding that awards have to be purely subjective things that some group gives out. On a separate note, there's relatively little discussion on Chess Grandmasters as a particular case, but the brief discussion that happened was based on the premise that no one would argue that an article about a chess grandmaster is not suitable for inclusion. Times change, but it does appear that the WP:NCHESS claim that chess grandmasters are notable has pretty deep roots in Wikipedia's framing of notability for significant honor/award. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is worth noting that WP:ANYBIO does not just render GNG "moot." ANYBIO says "meeting [these criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included." I haven't formed a strong opinion on whether to keep or delete, but saying that anybio makes gng "moot" feels like a bit of a stretch. Sleddog116 (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a stretch at all. WP:N is clear that a topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either GNG or an SNG, and is not excluded by WP:NOT. The warning that WP:ANYBIO does not guarantee inclusion is there to reflect the WP:NOT exception. Cobblet (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Do rename to Alexander Bagrationi (chess player)! gidonb (talk) 01:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because he is a grandmaster on the international level.חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 07:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: That does not show notability as far as wikipedia is concerned PaulPachad (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article does not quote any secondary reliable sources. Also a google news search only brings up two results and they do not discuss the subject directly or at length. He might be superb at chess but as far as the media is concerned he does not appear to be notable. There is no reason to hold him to a different standard than everyone else here who gets their articles deleted if they don't show reliable secondary sources. In my opinion fails WP:GNG PaulPachad (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't true. The cited Jewish Chess Encyclopedia entry is four sentences long and is clearly more than a trivial mention of Bagrationi. So is the ChessOK bio, and lacking a byline does not mean the article is unreliable any more than articles in the The Economist that lack a byline are unreliable. Many of the details given in the ChessOK bio can be corroborated in other sources, including the two facts for which the bio is cited in the Wikipedia article (his FIDE profile confirms he became an IM in 2009), which suggests that the article has been properly researched. The cited SV Unna site also clearly demonstrates that chess players in general find a grandmaster like Bagrationi worthy of notice. Cobblet (talk) 02:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Four sentences of basic biographical details is not SIGCOV, and there is a profound difference between an article run in The Economist and one in what appears to be a community posting platform by someone who isn't even listed among the dozens of "authors" on the site. Many of the details given in the ChessOK bio can be corroborated in other sources, including the two facts for which the bio is cited in the Wikipedia article (his FIDE profile confirms he became an IM in 2009), which suggests that the article has been properly researched. This is completely irrelevant, as that line of reasoning would permit use of any SPS that happened to contain a single verifiable fact. The cited SV Unna site also clearly demonstrates that chess players in general find someone of Bagrationi's stature worthy of note. This is also irrelevant, as it is actual in-depth commentary on the subject that is required for GNG, not vague assurances of notability based on editors' individual inferences. The ANYBIO argument is stronger, but like Sleddog16 said, if the only thing we can say about him is that he is a GM, then there is no reason to have a standalone article. JoelleJay (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I count around ten things we say about Bagrationi other than him being a GM. That is a reason for having a standalone article. No policy-based reason has been given for removing this content from Wikipedia when WP:ANYBIO has been satisfied. Cobblet (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We could collect 10 things to say about anyone from RS, probably even from independent RS. The reason we have a notability guideline that requires SIGCOV is to ensure there is sufficient sustained interest in a subject in the form of actual commentary on it, by unaffiliated people, with enough depth to develop a comprehensive article. The only things we can say about Bagrationi that come from independent RS -- and therefore could contribute to notability -- are what is in the JCE. We regularly delete sportspeople who have even more info from such stats database-type sourcing based on it being considered trivial, so such details are not considered significant enough for establishing notability. JoelleJay (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is the grandmaster and as per wp:chess he is notable. No other links are required. [2] Jimandjam (talk) 05:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    NCHESS is a project-level essay, not a notability guideline, and the instruction in the relisting above is pretty clearly directing participants to make arguments based on our policies and guidelines. JoelleJay (talk) 05:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As explained above by Mhawk10, NCHESS essentially expresses Wikiproject Chess's position on what players it considers as having satisfied the requirements of criterion 1 of WP:ANYBIO. And what multiple participants who are not part of that Wikiproject are basically saying here is that they agree that grandmasters are "worthy of notice", which is what WP:N is fundamentally about. By the way, norm-based grandmaster title applications (the way most players, like Bagrationi, achieve the title) are not awarded "automatically", but are reviewed and approved by FIDE's Qualification Commission. While the regulations for approving titles have been substantially clarified in recent years, reducing the degree of subjectivity in the process, the Commission still gets the final say on whether those regulations have been satisfied. Cobblet (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The main thing is, you are clearly neglecting the guideline NCHESS, and believing that all the guidelines are waste and we should only follow WP:GNG, even though specific guideline is given for chess player. I don't know where it is written that WP:GNG is everything and everything else is waste. If that is the case, why are we even have other guidelines. Jimandjam (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jimandjam, NCHESS is not a guideline. It is a project-level essay. The only notability guidelines we can use are those listed at WP:N. JoelleJay (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay WP:NCHESS heading itself is "notability of chess player" Jimandjam (talk) 05:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jimandjam A wikiproject can say whatever it wants about itself, but it doesn't mean anything unless it has achieved consensus in the wider community. NCHESS would have to be listed among the SNGs on WP:N or as a subcriterion within an SNG for it to have guideline status. JoelleJay (talk) 06:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fact that he is a grandmaster on the international level is noteworthy in and of itself by virtue of WP:ANYBIO point #1. The title of grandmaster isn't an automatic thing; one has to meet qualifications for it, and it has to be approved by FIDE. People keep pointing to WP:NCHESS, but that's honestly secondary here; the fact of the matter is that FIDE (which I think most would agree is a foremost authority on the game) has conferred "a well-known and significant ... honor" on Bagrationi, and given that fact, this article passes ANYBIO. That said, if his only notability is his title, his name is already included under List of chess grandmasters. Is there a good reason for him to have his own separate article, given that his only point of notability is already included elsewhere? This feels like it might be a case of WP:TOOSOON; it's possible he will achieve notability as a grandmaster, but so far, that hasn't really been definitively established. I'm not putting in a !vote either way or trying to make a case for or against deletion - just putting this out there because there's a lot of "keep" comments echoing basically the same thing without considering that we have other articles on the topic of chess grandmasters that might be more suitable for this content than it having its own standalone page. Just food for thought. Sleddog116 (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete and possibly redirect to List of chess grandmasters. I've done a bit of digging since my comment above and have formed more of an opinion, though admittedly not a strong one. There is simply a dearth of information about this player, and per my comment above, it just feels like WP:TOOSOON here. The fact that he is a grandmaster is noteworthy by virtue of the title, but that really just doesn't feel like a strong enough rationale for him to have his own article. I looked at some of the stub articles we have (at the risk of sounding WP:OTHERSTUFF-y) on other chess GMs (particularly Hristos Banikas) with the idea of possibly improving this article to make this discussion moot, but frankly, I couldn't find anything about him other than "he is a grandmaster." I can't find anything about his career (other than one Israeli source which is, essentially, just a list of his games) or his playing style or anything that could fill out this article a bit, and to my way of thinking (NCHESS and ANYBIO notwithstanding), that's just not enough to merit him having his own article since his only claim to notability is already covered elsewhere on WP. (EDIT: Based on subsequent discussion, I'm striking my delete in favor of a redirect; I honestly think that's the right course of action.)Sleddog116 (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you're quoting WP:TOOSOON, I remind you that it says specifically of WP:ANYBIO that it "allows editors to accept a presumption in good faith that other sources are likely to exist without also demanding that these "other sources" be immediately found and offered." If grandmasters are inherently noteworthy, as most contributors to the present discussion agree, then the basic WP:BIO standard of "worthy of notice" is already met. Furthermore, the current article meets both WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC, particularly when we take into account the latter's point that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." You are not suggesting that the content of the current article is problematic, just that you wish we had more. But what we have now is already significantly more than what could be kept if we were to redirect this article as you suggested. So how would redirecting the article and losing that information we currently have improve Wikipedia? Cobblet (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    BASIC still requires non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. That means only the material from the JCE can contribute to BASIC, and since it contains even less info than the average football player database entry ("Bagrationi Alexander (b. 07/13/1990, Ternopil), international grandmaster (2014). Since 2011 lives in Israel.
    Graduated from Ternopil National Economic University. The first coach is Anatoly Bagrationi (father). Tournament winner: Anapa (2008), Vitino (Crimea) and Brno (2009), Valuyskoye (2010). Champion of Jerusalem (2018).") there's no chance it provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article. There is zero evidence that the ChessOk article is reliable -- I can't even find an "About Us" section on the website -- and the ref should actually be removed per BLP. JoelleJay (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you might have misunderstood my rationale. The title of Grandmaster is noteworthy, but that doesn't mean everyone who achieves that title is noteworthy enough for their own article just by virtue of having that title; that's the whole reason we already have a List of chess grandmasters. The reason I'm saying Too Soon is because as of yet, there simply isn't sufficient coverage to justify him having his own article, particularly given User:JoelleJay's point about the reliability of the existing sources. I did just check his profile on FIDE's official site and can confirm that he is indeed a grandmaster, so I don't think there is any dispute over that single fact; I'm just saying that fact alone isn't sufficient to justify him having his own article. ANYBIO doesn't override BASIC. In all honesty though, I don't have a strong opinion for deletion; I'd be just as happy to see someone rescue this article, and it's not like there's a deadline. Sleddog116 (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is already enough cited information in the article that won't be found on list of chess grandmasters to !vote keep. Quale (talk) 05:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've struck my previous keep vote. After reviewing the discussion above, I think I over-relied on NCHESS and there just aren't any decent RS.Jacona (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to what others have pointed out, I am impressed by the coverage in the ChessOK and Sparkassen sources. Biographies, mentions of tournaments he has won, good photographs. And the Unna source gives you an idea of the regard in which he is held. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no consensus around NCHESS. Its is not policy and basing decisions on it when there is no comparative work done in the same manner as other community consensus based notability policies is wrong. Trying to foist it on the community at large, by this particular subgroup on the rest without community wide consensus is wrong as well. Basing decisions on it, when its not been accepted by the wider community is wrong as well and breaks Wikipedia 5 pillars. There is no conensus that grandmasters are automatically notable either. The references currently fail WP:GNG. There is no significant coverage to support an article. scope_creepTalk 19:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The WP:GNG is the only notability requirement that actually matters in the end, except for a very few noted exceptions (such as academics, as coverage is on their research and not them and so the coverage of their research needs to meet GNG for them). In this case, the significant coverage from secondary sources does not appear to exist. The sources being presented here and in the article are primary sources, except for the one very short encyclopedia entry. Which is not enough for proper significant coverage to meet GNG, not with just that one source at least. Unless more sources of secondary significant coverage from reliable sources can be presented, then this article fails notability requirements. SilverserenC 19:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. EDIT: or Redirect. I just realized I never actually !voted. To address some keeps: Quale, verifiable information existing is not a reason to have a standalone page if that information is not from reliable secondary independent sources and does not provide comprehensive coverage of the subject. Bruce leverett, the ChessOk article has no indication of reliability: not only is there no author listed, the site doesn't even have an About Us section that could demonstrate it is anything beyond a social platform; and the Sparkassen and Unna sources are not independent -- they are announcements about competitions reported by the competitions themselves -- and thus cannot be considered for notability purposes. JoelleJay (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of chess grandmasters per WP:ATD, as there is a suitable redirect target. Although he is a GM, there doesn't seem to be enough significant coverage to meet the requirements for a standalone article. The ChessOK source mentions that his Elo rating is not high enough to get invitations to major tournaments, which may be a possible reason for this. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I think. Considering how few GMs there are though, an article for each if sources permit doesn't sound crazy to me from an overview. Arkon (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexander_Bagrationi_(chess)&oldid=1091881770"