Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chessmetrics

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LaceyUF (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chessmetrics

[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)

There's zero in-depth reliable coverage. All sources are primary or give a passing mention only. LaceyUF (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:03, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chessmetrics is referred to by the NYT as "widely respected" [1]; it also features frequently at chessbase.com (though contributions there seem to be written by the creator of the system and could very well not be acceptable for establishing notability under the criteria); it is also sometimes mentioned at The Week in Chess, which seems to be independent. However, what seals the deal here is the presence of WP:RS which discuss the system; maybe they do not describe it to excruciating detail, but being referred to in 3 WP:RS ~~(including at least one which deals exclusively with it)~~ which provide commentary about the article topic seems enough evidence for me to conclude that the topic passes GNG, even if it seems to be highly specific to a certain field. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify which source you believe deals exclusively with the topic in an indepth manner? I've reviewed the sources in the article as well as the NYT article, and none are focused on the topic itself. All of them mention Chess metrics in a single sentence passing manner. (I'm discounting all articles written by the system's creator, as those are primary sources.) -- ferret (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that the link the criticism by GM Nunn (see article) was about Chessmetrics; on looking at it seems that it isn't even mentioned directly so I have gone ahead and added a {{Failed verification}} template because of the statement that "First, Nunn discusses various methods for trying to make assessments of the relative strengths of the players." - you could reasonably construe that it would include Chessmetrics, but we'd need to take a look at the book to be sure, and WP:AGF means I don't see why it should be removed if there is at least indirect evidence it is discussed. In any case, the way it is described in the NYT and the fact it is discussed and criticised (if even summarily) in papers still seem like enough weight to conclude that the topic is notable, per WP:NRV which states "the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, [...] Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications [i.e. the 2 papers], credible and authoritative books [i.e. Nunn is an authoritative source on chess], reputable media sources [NYT], and other reliable sources generally. [emphasis mine]" A direct quote from one of the (independent) papers cited in the article describes Chessmetrics as "the most complete and resounding attempt [to compare chess players]" and declares that the author (Sonas) "has become a leading authority in the field of statistical analysis in chess" - which might or might not be sufficient to meet criteria that the author is a subject matter expert as given by WP:SPS (though the author's publication are probably not acceptable for WP:N purposes in any case, even if they could be acceptable sources for article content). 107.190.33.254 (talk) 16:10, 23 June 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.