Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romesh Weerawardane

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. Based on the discussion here, closing this as delete would not be unreasonable, but I'm going to go with NC, largely to allow the discussion at WT:WikiProject Chess#Notability of chess players to resolve itself. Once that discussion is closed, feel free to re-nominate this for another look. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Romesh Weerawardane

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note:

This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sport-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I understand the fact that the article needs more clarification and I accept your proposal for deletion. But I have to say that the data about Weerawardane Romesh prevailed in Wikidata for about 3-4 years ago. [1]. I am in definite confusion. Abishe (talk) 09:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sportsfan 1234: Citing WP:NSPORTS is not particularly useful here as chess is conspicuous by its absence from this guideline. Do you have another rationale? --Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the general notability guidelines. Considering we have had articles survive on Wikipedia for 8 years with no sources at all, surviving 3-4 years means nothing. Wikipedia has a crisis of too many articles to monitor with our current level of participation in editing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - From what I can ascertain, there are four grades of World Chess Federation (FIDE) titles: Grandmasters (players with a rating greater than 2,500, of which there are at least 1,400 players with this title), International Masters (players with a rating between 2400 and 2500, with over 3,000 players with this title), FIDE Master (players with ratings of 2300 or more, for which there are over 5,500 players) and Candidate Masters (players with ratings of 2200 or more). Once achieved, these titles are generally held for life. I personally can not see a case to infer automatic notability on player who is just an International Master. The FIDE rankings currently have Weerawardane as the 47,729th player in the world and 28th player in Sri Lanka. Whilst the FIDE records indicate that he became an International Master in 2013 I can't find any reference to the claim that he was the 'first' IM in Sri Lanka. Also interesting is that his highest FIDE ranking appears to have only been 2,144 (which doesn't appear to qualify for an IM title). In the 2017 Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games his record was 2 wins, one draw and four losses. Based on the above I do not feel that he satisfies WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 09:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan arndt: I'm not sure what his peak rating was - the article says 2204, but Elo ratings are not the only way to earn the IM title - he was awarded it after his performance in the 2013 Asian Zonal, as his FIDE card indicates. He was the first Sri Lankan IM [2]; indeed he is still the only one.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pawnkingthree: I'm not necessarily across all things chess, so I stand corrected regarding your interpretation about how you earn a IM title. I do note that Weerawardane however is not the only Sri Lankan IM as according to your sources S. D. Ranasinghe is also an IM. BTW the source you provided stating he was the first Sri Lankan IM is from a blog site and is not considered WP:RS. What I was trying to state is that given the large numbers of GMs in the world (over 1,500) I can't see the case to justify an IM (where there are over 5,500) should be automatically notable. Dan arndt (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ranasinghe appears to be a Women’s International Master, which is not the same thing - it’s a lower standard. I take your point that there are thousands of IMs but that still represents only 0.25% of all tournament chess players.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delay decision - It so happens that a proposal for Notability of chess players is currently under discussion at WikiProject Chess. This subject would have made notability based on the first iteration of the proposal, but not according to the most recent iteration. I suggest holding on a decision in this case until we can apply the consensus guidelines that are reached there. Greenman (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If a person would pass those criteria but not actually be notable (i.e. not have received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject), that is a reason not to support those criteria. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with postponing the debate. It's kind of pointless if we delete this article and then the passed guidelines make him notable. EMachine03 (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reluctantly, as he doesn’t appear to meet GNG. His achievement in becoming the first player from his country to become an IM is a significant one in my view, but it doesn’t seem to have resulted in coverage from reliable sources, unless there are non-English language ones out there. He is a strong player and I found a couple of tournament wins but in the absence of a chess notability guideline (although as noted above there may be one soon) he doesn’t meet our general standards.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That he is the first International Master from Sri Lanka can be easily sourced by his page at the Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games: [3]. He is still the only one. This is the highest title that has ever been reached by a chess player from Sri Lanka. Belittling this achievement here leaves me a little puzzled. --Gereon K. (talk) 09:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability isn't about what we consider to be an achievement, impressive, important, etc. It's what other reliable publications have already considered to be noteworthy enough to write about in some in-depth fashion. The reason we might consider the "first X in country Y" to be notable is if we presume that that would mean it has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject because of it, not simply because of the fact of being the first. It's not about belittling an achievement or even disagreeing that it's an impressive achievement -- it's that the only thing that matters is that there be some good sources about it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep the first IM from Sri Lanka is probably a reasonable reason to keep the article. We have sources, if not great ones. Enough to have the basics. I strongly suspect there are quality non-English sources here. Hobit (talk) 03:58, 10 November 2017 (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.