Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ingrid Aliaga Fernández

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. Fairly good consensus to keep. Arguments against were that there didn't seem to be much in depth coverage. Arguments for included asserting notability through several sources and a new set of notability crteria from WikiProject Chess. That particular set of criteria assumes GNG is met on this article, although does not have the status of SNG. (non-admin closure) ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid Aliaga Fernández[edit]

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

A procedural nomination, I'm neutral on the outcome. This person meets the recently-established WP:NCHESS by having won the women's Peruvian Chess Championship. However, she never achieved the rank of Grandmaster (the older chess notability rule-of-thumb), nor do I see sufficient non-statistical references for this to pass via WP:GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I did a pretty good search for sources. Her name comes up in crosstables, and in news blips about tournament results, but unfortunately there doesn't look to be much by way of in-depth coverage (or much coverage at all unless we just wanted to compile a list of tournaments she has played in/won). E.g. [1] [2] [3] and then coverage in articles that seem more about Deysi Cori -- not sure why she received more coverage for her win than Aliaga did? (e.g.). Then there are a few questionable and/or primary sources, but even still there's no much to go by. To me this highlights an issue with NCHESS #2/#3 (being directly related) -- chess is played just about everywhere, and the coverage of winners of national championships doesn't reliably get a lot of in-depth reliable press coverage. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Peru is not like Bermuda or the British Virgin Islands, they have several grandmasters (e.g. Julio Granda Zuniga) so winning the Peruvian Women's championship and being the number 2 rated woman player in Peru is no trivial achievement. Competing in a women's world championship should be enough to get her over the line. Also, without going too deeply into the links, I get a lot of hits when I search on "Ingrid Aliaga" (the usual shortened form of her name). Most of them are in Spanish of course but that's perfectly ok. Article can be improved of course, citing Mark Weeks is not ideal but there's no reason to believe the information is false. The English (written by a non-native speaker) obviously needs cleaning up too. I don't see how it would improve the encyclopedia to delete this and break the links from Peruvian Chess Championship, Women's World Chess Championship 2010 and Women's World Chess Championship 2012. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxBrowne: Could you link to some of the sources you found? I also searched for Ingrid Aliaga and looked through the non-English sources and did not come up with enough. Meeting one of the criteria for chess players does not, of course, give anyone a free pass -- it's an indication of who's probably notable, not a guarantee (we still need some in depth coverage in reliable sources). I would love to switch over to keep, but we need more than just the fact that she won a title. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found an old interview with her, she was a promising junior who got her WFM title at 13 but appears to have curtailed the chess for several years to concentrate on study. She gets a fair amount of coverage in Peruvian and other Latin American sources (e.g. fideamerica.com) and IMO playing in a Women's World Championship alone is good enough to justify notability. In general I think User:Uldis s is doing a great job of countering the systemic WP:BIAS of the English wikipedia's chess coverage by creating articles for players who have not received much attention in English language sources. There is a big Pan-American chess scene which is poorly covered on the internet in general, and on wikipedia in particular. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Combination of FIDE title + multiple wins of a national championship + Olympiad appearances, constitutes good notability in my opinion. Brittle heaven (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Maybe a good case study in whether/how often a WikiProject's notability guidelines can supersede WP:N/WP:GNG (and/or whether that, combined with the non-English nature of most of the sources, provide a good enough reason to give the subject the benefit of the doubt). Arguments about titles, appearances, etc. should indicate that someone is notable in the sense of having significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. They don't confer notability unless we ignore GNG. (I must have missed the discussion leading to NCHESS, and certainly don't agree with the wording "presumed notable", which NSPORTS also uses) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed at WP:CHESS here and here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know. I commented in the first one, expressing that it should indicate what's notable and missing the language "presumed notable" -- I guess I just missed where it was implemented. I notice that Cobblet expressed something similar regarding relation to GNG, so I suspect this isn't actually intended to supplant the GNG and thus, again, titles, tournaments, etc. are only indicators of notability -- we still need sources when GNG is challenged. So far the best source is a brief interview published by the department of sport (not typically ideal to go to government sports agencies for neutral reporting of coverage of its own athletes). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the word "presumed" comes from GNG itself. Cobblet (talk) 03:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that WP:NCHESS is not a guideline but part of a WikiProject page, and as such does not represent the wider community consensus required for it to be taken into account in this AfD's closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Contra closing comment I believe there is community consensus to accept wikiproject notability guidelines that are adopted after due process, which this one clearly was. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I don't understand Sandstein's objection. Does he think that no other sports notability guidelines began as WikiProject discussions?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A handful of people at a WikiProject cannot decide to throw out WP:GNG in favor of their own criteria when that criteria claims as notable articles which are not notable according to any actual policies/guidelines. That's part of the difference between being something a couple people added to a WikiProject page and something that has strong consensus to be a guideline. This very AfD is an example of why the criteria at WP:NCHESS would have no chance to gain such consensus. Of course, since individual AfDs depend more on who attends them, it will probably be kept nonetheless. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one is throwing out GNG - these criteria merely indicate that in this case, she may met GNG by winning her national championship. Of course the sources may be offline and not in English. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Winning a national championship is enough to establish notability.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This blog reproduces an interview with Aliaga in El Peruano, and links to a different interview of hers in Perú.21, which no longer appears to be available online. There are also interviews of her on YouTube, e.g. [4], [5]. GM Slipak commented on some of her games in his daily round reports at the 2017 Women's Continental Championship: [6], [7], [8]. We can probably find even better coverage if we dig more deeply (for instance, this says a little bit more about Aliaga than the first source currently used in the article), but I think what we've already found is sufficient to constitute significant coverage. Cobblet (talk) 03:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in response to Sandstein: WikiProject guidelines that are accepted by the community (throught discussions like this one) generally are accepted in place of GNG, especially when people that meet those guidelines usually meet GNG as well. In this case, as the SNG was created very recently and hasn't been tested, it would be a circular argument to keep merely per the SNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:47, 17 April 2018 (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.