Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlsen–Nakamura rivalry


 * 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Owen&times; &#9742;  23:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Carlsen–Nakamura rivalry

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:GNG, and fails WP:NOR starting with WP:SYNTH, as rumors and coincidences have been used to create a rivalry that simply does not exist in the real world, not in the way that we understand the term to mean when we say "X-Y rivalry". As it will be relevant in the discussion, I want to note upfront that chess24.com and chess.com are not independent sources when it comes to Carlsen and Nakamura, and they do not always take their journalism seriously. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom – Article definitely fails mentioned categories above. A lack of impartial sources reporting on this topic as well definitely makes this article very dubious. This entire "rivalry" is more sensationalist tabloid than anything else, hoping to exploit the popularity of both players in recent years, rather than a genuine sports rivalry (e.g. Karpov–Kasparov). Zinderboff(talk) 14:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Norway,  and United States of America. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC) /
 * Strong keep or merge into two separate subsections on their pages. Notability is edgy but verifiability is there.
 * The topic itself is covered by non-chess RS here, here , here , and elsewhere.
 * If any of the details currently presented are SYNTH, deletion is hardly the answer.
 * Also, chess rivalries are not necessarily as savage as football rivalries. Chess is pure struggle, and not a physical one.
 * RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Another non-chess newspaper found:
 * How are the four sources I brought not WP:SIGCOV?
 * It’s unfortunate that the “keep” side doesn’t have the cabal-mobilization capabilities enjoyed most of the stadium sports WikiProjects…
 * RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete: CNN does indeed make a bizarre and extraordinarily exaggerated claim about their "must-watch encounters" being comparable to Messi vs. Ronaldo et al. However, there are no further reliable sources in the article about a "rivalry", only synthesis. The topic is not notable because the two players might have anticipated online blitz/bullet matches but are not comparable in an over-the-board format. Carlsen says "not really" to a comparison. Some other sources seem to exist e.g. Financial Times, but this is not the level needed for a standalone article (I'd expect books and academic articles written on the topic). There is no American-Soviet politics like with Bobby Fischer and Boris Spassky. Chess.com is not independent of Nakamura as they are a sponsor and both of their streaming projects are financially dependent on each other. The Play Magnus Group article demonstrates that Chess24 and Chess.com are not financially independent of Carlsen. — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep, I'm really not sure what the case is here. It's a well-sourced article including citations from varied reliable sources, both chess-focused and not, so very clearly passes the notability criteria even if one excludes chess.com/chess24 sources. The IndianExpress article cited by Bilorv only furthers to support the validity of the article and would be useful to add as a citation: Carlsen playing down the rivalry himself is irrelevant if a reliable source is reporting on the rivalry as existing- it's not up to the two players to determine the status of it. However, one thing I do think the article fails to make clear is that the reliable sources tend to focus on their rivalry in online speed chess in particular, rather than claiming a rivalry in classical over the board chess, so I do think it would be useful to reword the article somewhat to make the scope of it clear. Chessrat ( talk, contributions ) 18:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per Bilorv. Schweinchen (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ~  A412  talk! 20:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete We have far too many bad articles on rivalries that aren't actually rivalries. The sources here don't show this is an actual rivalry, just two good players who have played a number of games against each other. SportingFlyer  T · C  21:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per and . Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:NRIVALRY due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The sources are either primary or don't actually mention a rivalry beyond passing mentions. Let&#39;srun (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment The claim that the sources "don't actually mention a rivalry beyond passing mentions" is incorrect- the CNN, FT, and IndianExpress citations all explicitly have the rivalry as a main focus of the articles. Chessrat ( talk, contributions ) 12:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Did you read the SIGCOV sources I linked? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem with rivalry articles on Wikipedia is that we frequently get eager editors who create articles on rivalries because a couple journalists describe something as a rivalry. Most of the articles linked only discuss how Carlsen is playing Nakamura and then simply mention a rivalry without going into any depth about an actual rivalry in the Boca–River sense, just that the two players played each other again. Having reviewed the sources, I don't think that's necessarily enough to base an article on. SportingFlyer  T · C  09:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * At the same time if there are articles outside the "Carlsen played/will play Nakamura" context I might support keeping this at a different title. SportingFlyer  T · C  09:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I feel like it would be worthwhile to point out that most of the attention to this article has probably stemmed from the fact that it was posted on reddit with negative commentary yesterday, and that most of the editors pushing for the article to be deleted are not regular editors of chess-related articles. I am concerned about the possibility of vote brigading. Chessrat ( talk, contributions ) 12:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This possibility does concern me, but I was rather surprised how many of the others have high edit counts.
 * In the case of Daniel Quinlan, he’s active at WP:RFPP so he almost certainly saw it there. Don’t know about the others.
 * RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep As the creator of this article, I will briefly say that this whole discussion seems to be a brigading attempt from redditors who unfortunately are unwilling to realize that "rivalry" does not imply that the opponents are as strong or their scores are close to each other, but rather implies that there is a state of rivalry between them, as is the case with all chess opponents. I created the only other chess article which has the "rivalry" title in it about Kasparov and Karpov, so this ain't the only one. Carlsen-Nakamura is a notable rivalry if you follow chess. To reiterate "rivalry" does not mean that both of these guys are on the same level. After all Scotland-England football rivalry is extensively covered on Wikipedia even though England is much stronger in terms of results NyMetsForever (talk) 07:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * 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.