Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/43rd Chess Olympiad

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 keep. SpinningSpark 23:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

43rd Chess Olympiad

[edit]
43rd Chess Olympiad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:TOOSOON. The event in question is not scheduled until 2018. I fully concede that this subject is likely to pass GNG and WP:EVENT when it comes to pass. But as of right now it hasn't and it doesn't. PROD tag was removed. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is actual coverage. Please see the sources :) Greenman (talk) 09:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The available coverage does little more than note the next anticipated tournament. It is nowhere near satisfying GNG. Just because something exists, or is likely to at some future date, does not mean it is entitled to an article. If we were a couple of months instead of a couple of years away from an event that was likely to ring the WP:N bell, I'd probably be inclined to let it go. But what we have here is a non-notable micro-stub with no realistic hope of expansion before mid 2018. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article does say where the tournament will be held, as well as the budget and the fact that it will be held in conjunction with the World Cup which will be held at the same site in 2017. I've posted a deletion notice at talk:WikiProject Chess. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Saying this article has no hope of expanding beyond a micro-stub is a little like saying the same of 2018 FIFA World Cup (or the 2026 FIFA World Cup for that matter). There's a bidding process, a selection process, a venue, defending champions, a budget, link to the World Cup... This is not the 2028 event, it's the very next one :) Greenman (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the source coverage can be shown to meet GNG I would agree. But it doesn't. Yes there are references to the fact this event is likely to take place. But not much more. That's nowhere near enough to ring the WP:N bell right now. An event is not presumptively notable before it happens. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you agreeing TOOSOON does not apply and are arguing based on GNG? Of course it meets GNG, there are scores of articles about the event, the Georgian chess federation announced a huge program in 2014 in preparation for this event. Greenman (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If coverage of it halted completely right now, the event were cancelled, and nobody ever talked about it again, would it still be a notable subject? I say no. To rely on it happening and the promise of future coverage is where WP:CRYSTAL comes in. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, a cancelled Olympiad would be hugely notable. Greenman (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If coverage stopped today, there would be no coverage of the cancellation and thus because notability is based on coverage the cancellation wouldn't change anything. Also, if it's cancelled and it does get coverage, the notable topic would be Cancellation of the 43rd Chess Olympiad, not the Olympiad itself, which would've never happened. Either way, I realize a hypothetical has limited utility here, but it seems to me that notability is dependent on future coverage of either the event or its cancellation. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Either way, notability is dependent on the event happening or being cancelled." Is there a third possibility? Strawberry4Ever (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The third possibility is that there's a subject that's notable with only the present coverage (i.e. a notable subject without relying on a crystal ball or what will probably happen). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I read at WP:CRYSTAL. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. ... Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2020 U.S. presidential election and 2024 Summer Olympics. By this standard I believe 43rd Chess Olympiad should be kept, because it's notable, would merit an article if the event had already occurred, and is almost certain to take place. It's comparable to 2024 Summer Olympics, which by definition is allowable. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's comparable to 2024 Summer Olympics - It's not even close. It's not even like the Olympics to people in the chess world, nevermind a general audience. A search for "2024 Olympics" returns 400,000 hits. A search for "43rd Chess Olympiad" returns about 100 (not 100,000, but 100), and none of them are good sources that cover it in significant depth. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that it's comparable in the sense that both events would merit an article if the event had already occurred and are almost certain to take place. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The argument against is degenerating into crystal-balling. There is clear coverage of the event. Of course it's theoretically possible it could be cancelled. Of course another Olympiad could be inserted before this, and the name would change to 44th Chess Olympiad. Of course the 2026 FIFA World Cup could be rebranded and that article need to be renamed. None of those speculations affects its current notability. Greenman (talk) 09:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added references for the 43rd Chess Olympiad and the 2017 World Cup on the FIDE Calendar at fide.com, and corrected the city for the World Cup. To me, the fact that Batumi is listed on fide.com as being the site of the 2018 Olympiad shows that the Wikipedia article, small as it is, contains real information and isn't just speculation. If the site were uncertain then I'd agree that it's WP:TOOSOON. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I just looked at the cited sources again (some have been added) and what I am seeing is trivial and purely run of the mill coverage, most of it from affiliated sources. Nothing even remotely approaching the standard of significant coverage from multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Three of the six citations are to independent reliable sources. I don't see how one could construe any piece of information in the current article as trivial or run-of-the-WP:MILL as described in that essay with respect to sports topics. Cobblet (talk) 03:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly we have a difference of opinion. Since we are looking (presumably) at the same article and references, and seeing very different things I suggest we agree to disagree and let the community decide. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Calling these WP:MILL is just bizarre. A major chess event is being compared to an insignificant street name? The entire content of the independent articles are about this event! Greenman (talk) 09:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My reasoning while creating the article was that we should have it at the time when the preceding Chess Olympiad was underway even though it's two years in advance with substantially lower coverage. I also don't see how there is insufficient amount of reliable sources or how the article is too short, when it decently summarises the basic information for a future event verified with independent sources from mainstream websites. WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTALL and WP:MILL would have hold hadn't we known yet the name of the host-city and the dates of the event or had its content been verified with tin-foil-hat websites. It's perhaps worth considering creating an article about the 44th Chess Olympiad in Khanty-Mansiysk but the best time for it would be immediately before the start of the one in Batumi.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think this is TOOSOON territory - the event is almost certainly going to happen and there is already a fair bit of coverage in reliable sources of the bidding process and the announcement of the result. Hut 8.5 14:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since "the event is notable and almost certain to take place", WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. This is the next Chess Olympiad and although the article is short at the moment, basic information such as the host city are relevant and available. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cobblet. There is plenty of verifiable information about this event already, so CRYSTAL, TOOSOON, etc. don't apply. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • People keep talking about "verifiable" information and whatnot. Saying something is verifiable and not CRYSTAL/TOOSOON is not a keep argument, it's a response to two of the three deletion arguments. The third is notability, which requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It's not about "is there information" or "is there enough information", it's about the claim to significance for a yet-to-happen event. Any argument about notability that is based on future sources is WP:CRYSTAL. There need to be sources now that show notability of the subject as it exists today. Where are people seeing this? Official announcements do not help notability. Announcements by involved organizations do not help notability. Blurbs on self-published sources like blogs do not help notability... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added a citation of chessbase.com, which is a reliable source for chess information. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And again, where is the significant coverage as outlined at WP:N? As far as I can tell, the entirety of the coverage in that source is "The next Olympiads have also been announced, with the 2018 World Chess Olympiad to be held in Batumi, Georgia from September 23 – October 7, 2018". This is what you're saying helps notability? That's about as much of a "brief mention" as it gets. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read or write Georgian but with the aid of Google Translate I was still able to find articles like this and this. Significant local coverage undoubtedly exists for an event of such obvious importance to Georgia, even if contributors to the article may not feel comfortable citing it, since presumably few of us are familiar with the language. Questioning the availability of significant coverage without a good-faith search for non-English sources does nothing to help Wikipedia's notoriously weak coverage of topics not directly relevant to the English-speaking world. Cobblet (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:TOOSOON, as a few others above have done. AlphaBetaGammaDeltaEpsilonZeta 13:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Chess Olympiad, or Merge to 41st Chess Olympiad.  Also, salt until 8 October 2018.  Incubate on request.  As stated in the article, this information is from the 41st Chess Olympiad, so merge might be considered.  Better than articles that say, "such and such may happen but we don't yet know...", are articles that say, "such and such happened"; for example, "At the 41st Chess Olympiad, the 43rd Chess Olympiad was scheduled on...at..."  Unscintillating (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CRYSTAL #1 (Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. - is there any doubt that both of these conditions are met?) Apart from that, WP:TOOSOON is an essay (while WP:CRYSTAL is a policy), and I don't think articles can be deleted based on essays. GregorB (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • is there any doubt that both of these conditions are met? - ? This page exists because of that doubt. CRYSTAL is not a keep rationale, it's a delete rationale, and one of several presented here (notability being the one people seem inclined to bypass). There's no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. There are primary sources, basic event announcements, brief mentions, etc. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so there is doubt after all? Which is it:
  1. The 43rd Chess Olympiad won't be notable, even though the first 42 were?
  2. There is reason to believe that the 43rd Chess Olympiad won't be held?
My understanding of WP:CRYSTAL #1 is that, in order to delete, at least one of the answers to the above two questions should be "yes". GregorB (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In order to delete solely because of WP:CRYSTAL, yes. Then there's notability. You highlight the problem with won't be notable. To have an article on Wikipedia now, it has to be notable now. Which means significant coverage in reliable sources now, not later. So notability is the big problem, but WP:CRYSTAL is relevant because, as it says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." (emphasis added to highlight present, not future tense). The 2016 US Presidential Election is notable despite not taking place yet because it receives significant coverage in reliable sources. Ditto the next Olympics. This has received no such coverage. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are the sources currently in the article, with GNG relevance analyzed:
  • "FIDE Calendar 2018". fide.com. FIDE. Retrieved 16 September 2016. *Primary
  • "Kasparov Replies: "Whom Will You Support?"". 8 June 2014. Retrieved 16 September 2016. *Self-published opinion piece by a chess expert. It's long, and contains points that could be converted to encyclopedic material, but the main thrust of the message is politics regarding the next presidency of FIDE.
  • Here are two sources listed by Cobblet:
Unscintillating (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The second Georgian article I linked to is not an editorial; it's an interview of several parties competing for a slice of the Georgian government sports budget and their reaction to the chess federation being given over half of it. The characterization of the Kasparov piece is also misleading; it is self-published, yes, but not by the subject itself. This is a statement by a candidate for the FIDE presidency (not just some random "chess expert") trying to explain his support of a rival bid for the Olympiad.
Not every citation in the article as it stands is to an independent, reliable source; nevertheless, significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources clearly exists for this topic. Here are a few more examples.
Also, seeing that the previous analysis provides word counts, I'll point out that length is not the primary consideration in the "significant coverage" component of WP:GNG; rather, the primary considerations are whether the coverage is "directly" related, "in detail" (i.e. not vague, covering all details) and "more than trivial" (i.e. the information provided is important to the topic). Cobblet (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not meeting WP:GNG does not imply "delete". E.g. settlement articles are not deleted because they don't satisfy WP:GNG (and many of them fall way short!). That's because settlements are presumed notable. Here, it's a notable event, almost certain to happen, and that's all there is to it. GregorB (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2016 (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/43rd_Chess_Olympiad&oldid=1078076339"