Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlsen–Niemann controversy


 * 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 WP:SNOW keep. So Why  10:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Carlsen–Niemann controversy

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

WP:POVFORK with clear WP:RECENTISM bias. There is nothing here that can't be handled by the Hans Niemann and Magnus Carlsen articles. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep as there is widespread media coverage also outside chess-focused news sources (as evident from the references list and just any basic web search). This is one of the largest controversies in chess history, I'm sure it will pass the test of time (and if it doesn't, just nominate it again). &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: This has been a pretty widely covered event, even outside of regular chess publications. Since the continuation of the controversy to the Julian Baer Generations Cup, there does not seem to be an appropriate merge target in my mind. To cover in either Carlsen or Neimann's page specifically seems like it would result in an WP:XY redirect to me from this merge. With the amount of news coverage being significant and from WP:RS and also covering multiple chess tournaments, I can see nothing else to do, but to keep. TartarTorte 00:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The Julian Baer cup is a minor on line event, not rated by FIDE (the game's international governing body). Carlsen's behaviour there is really just a postscript to the Sinquefield Cup incident. We don't have separate articles on the Kasparov-Polgar touch-move controversy or the Kramnik-Topalov Toiletgate controversy, so why this one? Because we have more internet now? How is this particular "scandal" more important than the others which nobody proposed separate articles for? In 50 years time, would you really expect to see a separate article on this in The Encyclopedia of Chess, rather than just covering it in the players' respective articles? We should add "internetism" to "recentism" as potential sources of bias IMO. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Without regard to FIDE's lack of governance over the Julian Baer Generations Cup, Carlsen's near immediate resignation got coverage far beyond chess publications. I think that So long as an article passes GNG, then it should be kept. While it's certainly related to the controversy coming out of the Sinquefield Cup, the significant coverage of it is partially due to there not being a whole lot left on the chess calendar this year in terms of notable events, especially that Carlsen and Niemann would end up facing off against each other in. There's another tournament in the Meltwater Champions Chess Tour where it's possible they'd play each other, but that is not FIDE sanctioned. The only FIDE sanctioned event in which I could see them facing off is possibly the World Team Championship, but to be honest, I don't know if (and to some extent doubt that) Niemann will be on the US team for the tournament. The time at which it happened in the chess calendar for 2022 is quite unfortunate when it comes to determining recentism. TartarTorte 01:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If the controversy peters out to nothing, as the Kramnik-Topalov controversy did, this article can be merged into the biographies of the players. But until then, there is all this coverage to deal with, especially in non-chess publications.  So a separate article seems to be in order right now.  Conversely, if the controversy mushrooms into something serious, depending on what that something is, some other merge target may present itself. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, it is a widely talked about event, with many sources and all that good stuff. Liliana UwU  (talk / contribs) 01:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, a rather historic event in the modern history of chess. BD2412  T 01:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The events have been widely covered by a slew of major news sources, it's been described as unprecedented by numerous chess authorities, and it will very likely affect the careers of both players (and perhaps the chess world) rather significantly moving forward. AviationFreak💬 01:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep very notable scandal Bumbubookworm (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Significantly covered as a shocking upset, an online beef, an underdog story, a cheating scandal, an intriguing silence, a butt joke and an unprecedented show of tactlessness by the supposed world's best. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per, InedibleHulk. Schierbecker (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Davey2116 (talk) 05:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as nom, per WP:10YT. This is just passing social media gossip. Yes it will be mentioned in future biographies of Carlsen and possibly Niemann (if he's judged worthy of a bio), but it won't have more than a couple of pages dedicated to it. It is clearly WP:UNDUE to give it a whole article. By the way the article includes several links to youtube and other unreliable sources. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep It's the biggest controversy in chess of recent years, widely covered in mainstream press, and will be remembered for years to come even if it stops now. It satisfies GNG. Hzh (talk) 08:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG. It is widely covered by independent, secondary and reliable sources. --Assyrtiko (talk) 09:58, 21 September 2022 (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.