Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlsen versus Nepomniachtchi, World Chess Championship 2021, Game 6


 * 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. Daniel (talk) 05:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Carlsen versus Nepomniachtchi, World Chess Championship 2021, Game 6

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

It is unusual for articles to be created for individual chess games. This is reserved for the most famous games such as the Game of the Century and the Evergreen Game. There is no evidence yet that this game is independently notable. The content should be merged into World Chess Championship 2021. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

*Keep as nominator. Clearly it is notable. The longest individual game in a World Chess Championship match, since it began. Not sure why people are lobbying so hard for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:502A:C500:65E2:7D65:F3EA:3E5F (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge as nominator. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as creator. I've already stated on the article's talk page and will repeat it here that this is the longest chess game in a World Chess Championship ever and the first decisive classical game in more than five years, which is the longest winless period in the history of FIDE World Chess Championships. After all classical games in the previous World Chess Championship match were drawn, FIDE increased the number of games from 12 to 14 and changed the time control for this match in order to prevent similar outcome. The fact that we don't have more articles on chess games shouldn't be an argument not to write such articles in the same why we do for matches/games in other sports.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep this is already being discussed as one of the greatest chess games less than a few hours after it ended, along with the historical significance of the game I think this means it can have its own article. Hochithecreator (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Who is saying that? Adpete (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Simply being the longest doesn't confer notability for a standalone article and nothing beyond that is shown in the article. Brandmeistertalk  23:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Neutral. Merge. Searching for this game has very minimal news coverage. Most of it recent. COULD become notable later, but we’ll see. Keep. As per the extensive arguments below. Game has become notable since the day I cast my Merge vote. Jobie James (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge It is FAR too early to tell how this game will be regarded in future years. In any case, all the article is at the moment is the description of the match situation (which is already in the main article, or should be) plus the unannotated moves of the game. So it would sit perfectly in the main article at the moment. A better approach would be to leave it in the main article, and create a separate article if and when it gets too big for the main article. Adpete (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect or merge I redirected this page back to the WCC 2021 page, but was reverted. I was then considering nominating this for deletion, but wanted to wait a week or two. This game may be "notable" for the longest chess game in a World Chess Championship, but any content can be merged into its parent match page World Chess Championship 2021. "First decisive chess game in 5 years" is not significant and is a quirk because of the way chess is being played nowadays. I don't believe this game is being discussed as an all time great game. Natg 19 (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I’ve expanded the article with a prose summary about the game.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge based on WP:RECENT and WP:CRYSTAL. We can determine later if this is notable enough for its own page. For now this should be merged. AlexKitfox (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to Keep. Seeing the articles/commentary released following this game has convinced me that there is enough consensus over relevance for this game to have its own page. AlexKitfox (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, the longest game in the history of the World Chess Championship and the game that ended the longest ever streak of 19 draws in consecutive World Chess Championship seems notable enough to me to have its own article. I haven't checked English sources but there certainly is good coverage of the match on non-chess specific German sources like Sueddeutsche Zeitung and Kicker. I believe it meets WP:GNG through Significant coverage. Calistemon (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that there are sources, as the World Chess Championship 2021 match is being covered by a wide variety of media outlets. However, I don't believe that those 2 "historical" facts are enough for this game to have its own article Natg 19 (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per . Thanoscar21talk, contribs 00:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I have no desire to obliterate User:Kiril Simeonovski's excellent content, I just don't think this game needs a separate article. It would not be inappropriate to expand the coverage of this game within the World Chess Championship 2021 article, as it is obviously signficant in the context of the match. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per . -- Ace*YYC 02:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per . 9ninety (talk)


 * Merge. If this becomes the only decisive game of the match or there is otherwise sustained interest in the game over time a stand-alone article could be desirable, but for now nothing that can be said here can't be said in the article for the match. It is true that this is the longest World Chess Championship game, but the previous longest game (World Chess Championship 1978 game 5) did not generate enough interest in virtue of its length to warrant a stand-alone article either. Plainsoup (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per Calistemon. The analysis in this article should be kept, and it is too long to merge into the World Chess Championship 2021 article. The record for longest world championship game gives this game sufficient notability, especially considering that the previous recordholder was not particularly interesting (Karpov and Korchnoi played a dead drawn position for many moves without offering a draw). Davey2116 (talk) 07:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I still don't think this deserves an article - how can WP editors possibly improve on the excellent commentary on the web by super-GMs like Anish Giri - but it's pretty obvious by now that this is a WP:SNOWBALL keep. Adpete (talk) 07:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * How is this a SNOW keep when the tally at the time of your post was 7 in favor of keeping, 7 in favor of merging? Mlb96 (talk) 08:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ha ha fair point. I just figure that if enough people care enough to want it, let them have it. Adpete (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge Too early to say it's historically significant on the level of the other games with articles. That bar is so high that even Steinitz vs. von Bardeleben 1895 doesn't have its own article. Double sharp (talk) 08:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And, thinking of notable WCC games, neither does the Pearl of Zandvoort (Euwe-Alekhine 1935, game 26). Or more recently, Karpov-Kasparov 1985 game 16 or Anand-Carlsen 2013 game 9. Double sharp (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the coverage now that the match is over, referring to this game not only in the context of the match but also that of Carlsen as a player, I've reconsidered. I still think it is a bit early to make the call, but I now think it's more likely that this'll be notable, so consider this a Weak Keep from me. Double sharp (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree in general that WP:GNG is too weak a hurdle for an individual game since WP:NOTNEWS applies unless a game gets wide and lasting attention beyond the news. However, setting a new record for the longest World Championship game ever makes the game considerably more notable than most others and justifies an individual article. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to World Chess Championship 2021. The reception can be merged, the play turn by turn trivia is fit for chess fan wiki, not Wikipedia. I don't see this passes WP:GNG for stand-alone article. Sorry, chess-fans. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment To those referring to WP:GNG, please note that it's only a guideline, not a rule, which means that we should look at additional criteria such as article's quality. As for its importance and impact, the game has already been described as 'epic'.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As was 2018 Game 6 https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/nov/16/world-chess-championship-game-6-carlsen-caruana Adpete (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That game was also great but it didn't break any chess record and the stereotype that "classical chess is dead". This game is important because its decisive result ends a five-year period of 19 consecutive drawn games spanning three different championships, and it comes after the format of the World Chess Championship was changed and a new time control was introduced. That's a very big deal.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep — Not only was this the longest game in a World Chess Championship — a record which was broken after 43 years, it was also the longest win — a win that came after nearly five years and 19 straight draws. In addition to 's sources, I found — The Guardian, The Washington Times, ABC (newspaper), and News.com.au — neither of which are chess-centric. The case for meeting GNG is somewhat weak (not too weak though) because of NOTNEWS, and we don't know how historically significant this would be considered later on. But the fact that it broke those notable records, in addition to the press coverage it has received, should be enough to establish notability. The point that Wikipedia does not usually have articles dedicated to individual chess games should not be used as a precedent in deciding whether or not it is appropriate to write them. — The Most Comfortable Chair 10:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * most of those sites are covering most games of the match anyway: Washington Times, The Guardian, ABC Newspaper. Not news.com.au, admittedly. But news coverage of a game does not make it WP-article-worthy. Adpete (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Which is why I mentioned that the argument is somewhat weak. It is primarily the record in context of what chess has now become (in terms of accuracy as well as popularity) that it becomes notable. Note how sources that I cited discuss the record. It was not just an average 60-move win, and that is reflected in the sources. Quite heavily so in chess-centric media actually (more so than it would be if it was just another World Championship win). All things considered, I do find the topic to be notable enough to have a stand-alone article, but I do see why others may not see it that way, and they have good points too. — The Most Comfortable Chair 12:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe it can boil down to how notable you consider this record to be. You would generally expect a chess game to end sooner rather than later after the 40th move and it is incredibly rare to see games that go over the 100 move mark in World Championships. Not only did this go above and beyond the time you would expect a championship game to last (136 moves over 7 hours and 45 minutes), it broke a 43-year old record and brought an end to a 5-year streak of draws across 3 championship matches. In my understanding, that is notable enough considering how crucial just your average World Championship wins are. — The Most Comfortable Chair 12:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As much as those records may be historical, bear in mind that this is just one game out of 14 (at least) and, most likely, non-deciding. If Ian wins this Championship, this game will be pretty much overshadowed. I would have supported a standalone article, had it been the deciding game, in addition to being the longest, but it's not the case, failing WP:EVENTCRITERIA so far. Brandmeistertalk  22:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Being the only decisive game in a single championship match is far less significant an event than being the longest chess game (and win) in the history of the World Chess Championship, spanning 150 years and breaking a record which stood for 43 of them. Nepomniachtchi could very well win all the remaining games but it would not change the independent significance of this record. Notability is not conditional to how other games in one series pan out, but it could be derived from how all World Chess Championship games have panned out — which is that very rarely do we see games that last this long, let alone wins. Going by your suggestion that you would be likely to support an article if this were to become the deciding game in the match, shouldn't RAPID apply here and we could perhaps wait and see? — <b style="color:#000000">The Most Comfortable</b> <b style="color:#8A2BE2">Chair</b> 04:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think WP:DELAY applies here instead of RAPID. The assessment of impact and notability requires some time (although we have both DELAY and RAPID contradicting each other). Brandmeistertalk  08:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To clarify, it is my understanding that neither of them apply because the topic already seems notable enough to me. I was simply using RAPID as an alternative to your suggestion of merging since you mention that you would support this as a stand-alone article if this was the tipping point game, and we will know if that is the case or not in about 10 days. — <b style="color:#000000">The Most Comfortable</b> <b style="color:#8A2BE2">Chair</b> 08:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per Kiril Simeonovski's argument. A lack of articles on past notable chess games should not set a precedent for a lack of articles on current and future notable chess games. It is the longest (and arguably most complex/highest level) game in World Championship history, which in itself merits an article. A lack of news coverage by non-chess sites within a day of the game's finish is not a strong argument to merge the game; chess games gain notability through the publication of literature analyzing them, not because a mainstream site decided to make a short, one paragraph article on them. If in the future there is a complete lack of overall coverage on the game (and it seems it has just blended into the rest of the games of this year's Championship), then it would merit merging, but as of right now, there seems to be enough distinction between it and the other games that would warrant it its own article. Haydenaa (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per . — <span style="color:#990033;font-family:calibri, Courier new;font-variant:small-caps;">Ddxfx 16:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kiril. Been the longest chess game in a World Chess Championship ever it's enough to deserve its own article. Alexcalamaro (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I'd read the 538 article on this game before I saw this AfD. "Instant Classic".  The article needs a lot of work, but the sourcing is clearly there. Hobit (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge I wouldn't have believed that someone would create an encyclopedia article on this topic, if it hadn't been done.  Obviously the chess press is excited about this game right now, but the novelty will wear off soon enough.  The game isn't even all that good.  It's hard enough, day to day, to convince editors who aren't familiar with chess that this or that grandmaster or tournament is notable; it doesn't make it any easier, when chess editors fall all over each other gushing about some stupid 136-move game, which was a tablebase draw until move 130.  Bruce leverett (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the quality of the game matters at all here, but even if it does, a quote by Savielly Tartakower says "Chess is a fairy tale of 1,001 blunders." and another one by Emanuel Lasker says "Without error there can be no brilliancy." Technically speaking, all chess games with separate articles were not that good. If chess were a game in which all humans played like machines, it surely wouldn't be as exciting and popular as it really is. And the fact a game in a World Chess Championship match, which was a tablebase draw until move 130, was won only adds significance and proves that even the best chess players are only humans who can't play optimally as calculated by machines. I don't remember that there has been a chess game in a World Chess Championship before, which was a tablebase draw but ended decisively.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but in WP:EVENT terms this was created prematurely. We need to establish a significant post-event coverage and lasting impact which requires some time. With that in mind, draftifying could be an alternative so far. Brandmeistertalk  22:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you don't think that the quality matters, then we aren't on the same page, and I don't know how we can get there. In the whole encyclopedia, quality matters, from the writing, to the illustrations, to the editorial selection. Do our readers want to slog through 136 moves of a game that varies from tedious to poor? Do people come to an encyclopedia looking for games in which otherwise strong players ground away for hours, making crucial mistakes now and then? The games in the "notable games" sections of our chess biographies are always of high quality. It is a disservice to both Carlsen and Nepo to show off this game.
 * We have an article, List of world records in chess, and I note with pleasure that it has been updated to reflect this game. That is about as much coverage as the record deserves.  The players weren't striving for this record; they backed into it, in spite of their best efforts.  Bruce leverett (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:AVOIDSPLIT, WP:TOOSOON, WP:SPORTSEVENT. While this has clearly received coverage from reliable sources, it's of the level of routine coverage that can be expected at major sporting events. While it's certainly possible that this might end up having lasting significance that warrants an article, we aren't there yet. Merely holding a record is not enough for notability (the Karpov-Korchnoi game that previously held the record does not -- and should not -- have an article). Lowercaserho (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep We keep articles on notable individual sports matches as they are encyclopedic, see Kick Six and Mile High Miracle. Many of the votes here stink with WP:IDONTLIKEIT as this article clearly passes WP:GNG. In addition, the level of coverage is well above what a normal chess game gets. Swordman97  talk to me  22:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well of course this game (and match) is getting coverage. This is akin to Game 6 (of 14) of the NBA Finals or MLB World Series. We already have an article on the championship "series" (match), World Chess Championship 2021. The question that we need to address is whether this individual game is historic enough to rise to the level to have a separate article (a la Steve Bartman incident) or if it should be merged back into the parent article. Natg 19 (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would argue that Game 6 of the Nba finals deserved it's own article since it had one of the greatest individual performances in a Finals game. The end of Game 5 also had a lot of coverage. Swordman97  talk to me  23:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep This game is not only the longest world championship match of all time (by quite a margin), but also broke the longest ever streak of draws in games for the world champion title, being the first decicive victory in 5 years. It is notable not just for this, but also for having required an absolutely herculean effort by both players, and for the insane precision with which every single move had to be played. It is incredible how the slightest of innacuracies was enough for Magnus to grasp on to and see the path to turn into a win. It is hard to explain to someone who doesn't watch chess, but there has never been a game quite like it in recent memory, at least not such a high profile one. At the highest level chess is not really a game of flashy attacks and sacrifices anymore, it is one of extreme subtelty and precision, and the inhuman level of precision that had to be maintained throughout such an extended period is one of the most brilliant displays of chess imaginable in modern chess. Therefore, notable modern games will not have the same flair as other games that might have their own WP entry, but that does not make them lesser, it is simply a consequence of the evolution of chess and it's players. Anyway the coverage and attention it has recieved dwarfs any other chess game in recent times and that by itself combined with the fact it broke records should be a convincing argument. paulibobo (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.49.160.191 (talk)


 * Keep The criteria for when a specific thing (game, event, whatever) merits its own separate article are set out in WP:GNG which this clearly meets. We really should stop trying to invent additional hurdles over and above this - it isn't necessary and does nothing to improve the quality of Wikipedia (which ultimately is what this is all about). 109.153.222.124 (talk) 12:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

<p class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous non-admin closure undone and discussion relisted per Deletion review/Log/2021 December 6. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   13:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge The game is significant only because of its move count and recent historical significance. There is nothing special about the game itself nor its influence on the chess world. Breaking a five-year streak of draws in the WCC does not seem notable enough to warrant an article. Most of the article's significance can be summarized in a few sentences.
 * This game further loses its notability after the result of Game 8. There has now been two wins in the past five years, which suggests that the streak of draws is more remarkable than Game 6's result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:101:F000:701:8EF4:EAD:65FE:D001 (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Arbitrary criteria don't cut it, see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Sources are covering this game, and its our job to determine whether that coverage is acceptable and likely to be exist beyond the normal timeframe (meets GNG) or whether it is unlikely to gain any further attention (fails NOTNEWS). Another consideration is whether the coverage this game (as opposed to others in this match, which are not quite so significant) can adequately be summarised on the main article, or not. If you don't address that argument, then the next closer is going to ignore your comment, just like I did. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not a personal opinion. To address your concerns, the other wins in the match also obtain significant coverage, so if this game meets the guidelines, I don't see why the other wins shouldn't also get their own articles. Furthermore, most of the information in the main article succinctly summarizes this game; the notability, opening choice, moves, and computer analysis are all provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:101:F000:701:8EF4:EAD:65FE:D001 (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case, Procedural keep/discuss this later in a few months time per my close (which very few people argued as being wrong, the only objection being that it was untimely) as explained at the DRV Because many of the merge comments are unconvincing, and because talking about "long-term significance" a few days after something is an effort which is very much doomed to fail to yield an objective result except in very clear and obvious cases (and this, despite the strong consensus to keep at this time, is not one where the long-term significance of the thing is beyond reasonable doubt). The NOTNEWS/TOOSOON argument should be revisited at some point, when this is neither A) receiving widespread [one could even say "GNG"] coverage in the news nor B) too soon after the event [both the article being so quickly created; and this AfD so excessively rapidly started...]. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Your early close was arrogant, as is your dismissal of the significant (if currently minority) view that this game does not merit its own article. No "procedural" anything, just let the process run normally. I have no problem with whatever the final result is, so long as the process is conducted fairly. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not dismiss anything, I correctly noted that there was a clear outcome and that this AFD was ill-timed. As for arrogance, that's a discussion best had at another place and which should come only after a humbling look at the mirror... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep very important game because of its move count and historical significance. It is a clear pass of WP:GNG as the game received significant, non-routine coverage.  Frank   Anchor  16:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Extensive coverage in reliable sources, much in excess of earlier games in the match (or game 8). Following live, it really did feel "epic" watching Carlsen slowly grind out a win. As for any comparison with Game 8, Carlsen has said that he would not have won 8 if he had not already won 6. Nepo would very likely not have made that b6 blunder, but for the loss two days earlier. Edwardx (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep extensive coverage, clearly passes GNG. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 01:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as passing GNG. I also want to emphasize that "It is unusual for articles to be created for individual chess games" is a very poor rationale for deletion with no basis in policy. The WP:NOTNEWS angle that others have mentioned is more worthy of consideration, but ultimately I don't think it's accurate to say that the coverage of this game is merely "routine". Colin M (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As I was saying, despite the (previously) apparently not overwhelming count, there's no realistic chance this closes as anything but keep (which is why, I guess, SNOW does not give a precise percentage). Somebody should reclose this promptly and get this done with. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What "somebody" should do is pipe down, let the process take its course, and stop attempting to WP:BLUDGEON it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment It would be sensible to ask why, indeed, it is unusual for articles to be created for individual chess games. In my lifetime, by far the most notable individual games were several played during the Fischer-Spassky match, and some of the games of the Kasparov-Deep Blue matches.  I would venture to say that the coverage of the Fischer-Spassky games by reliable sources, especially by sources that did not specialize in chess, was much greater than anything we have seen since, until and including Carlsen's world championship matches.  Yet, no one has written a Wikipedia article about any of those games.  I have not even seen any discussion of the possibility of creating such an article, by Wikipedia editors.
 * I can't speak for other Wikipedia editors interested in chess, but I myself would not expect success for any such article, because I would not expect non-chess players to use Wikipedia to look it up. The natural way for a person to look up Fischer's first match game with Spassky, the one in which he made an elementary blunder, would be to look up the article about the match, in which the score of the game is presented, with light commentary.
 * In addition, I would have to admit, reluctantly as an editor interested in chess, that WP:DELAY and WP:SUSTAINED apply with great force to chess games. For example, there was much gushing at the time about the 13th game of the Fischer-Spassky match.  Botvinnik, a past world champion, called it "the highest creative achievement of Fischer ... Nothing similar had been seen before in chess."  (You can see these quotations in the article about the match.)  But now, it has largely been forgotten, except among chess players.
 * This brings me to a general remark about gushing. Chess commentators, like sports commentators, tend to go overboard with praise and criticism of a game.  For them, there's no downside to going overboard.  It's even good for them to the extent that it gets people interested in the subject.  But we are not chessbase; we are Wikipedia, and we have an obligation to try to keep a sense of perspective.
 * One more thing. Several editors suggested that the topic was notable because the game set some records (longest game in a world championship, etc.).  I don't know how seriously I should take this.  WP:N doesn't say a thing about breaking records.  Bruce leverett (talk) 04:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of your argument is personal opinion about the significance/lack-thereof of individual chess games, which is not relevant in this deletion discussion (see WP:OSE and false equivalence for why those comparisons are probably inaccurate). The relevant part of your argument is, however, circular. "It is unusual for articles to be created for individual chess games" is not a valid argument to support "this article about a chess game should not have been created" (you're using it as a self-fulfilling prophecy); as it does not address either the reasons why this game might be unusual enough for it to warrant an article, nor, and more importantly, the coverage of this game in reliable sources, which many others describe as more than what one would expect for a routine chess match, even given this is a WC match. It does not even seem to be aware of the WP:SPLIT issue. If you fail to address these, then your argument is not much more than a prolonged "I don't think this game is significant enough". Without further subtantiation, that is not a valid reason to merge, because on Wikipedia, to determine if a topic is significant enough, we follow (after critically assessing them) sources, not editor opinions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * —, your comment was insightful and it made me dig in a bit. Ian Nepomniachtchi's article for instance is noticeably lacking in content, and Rustam Kasimdzhanov's article is even shorter and he is a former world champion (whether or not we consider the 2004 championship to be as serious as other championships). We can probably find dozens of chess-related articles that we would consider to be "important" in the chess world, but that is not reflected in the quality or quantity of coverage in their respective Wikipedia entries. You will find players who are yet to make their NBA debuts to have significantly more detail and in-depth coverage than high-importance chess players in their Wikipedia articles — Vasily Smyslov stands out to me.
 * This speaks to a general deficit in editors interested in working on chess-related articles and a lack of popular and sustained interest in the sport. Not that we don't have editors who write high-quality chess articles, just that there aren't enough of them. And I see this article as an example of one of those editors who produce high-quality chess content working on a topic that, to me at least, rightly deserves to have an article to its own. If not for its significance (and I believe that it does), than at least for SPLIT.
 * From what I have noticed, when you say "Yet, no one has written a Wikipedia article about any of those games. I have not even seen any discussion of the possibility of creating such an article, by Wikipedia editors" — and I agree with your statement — I believe that it comes from a general lack of editors willing to work on chess-related articles, and not necessarily from those topics lacking in significance. I understand you were not claiming that those games are not important, and it is my understanding that they are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles of their own. The fact that we don't have articles on games with much more coverage should not discredit the coverage this game has received (even if it pales in comparison to games of the past). If anything, this tells us that there are many more chess games that we could be writing about. — <b style="color:#000000">The Most Comfortable</b> <b style="color:#8A2BE2">Chair</b> 06:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I myself would not expect success for any such article, because I would not expect non-chess players to use Wikipedia to look it up I don't think this is a valid argument. I would not expect non-computer scientists to use Wikipedia to look up Pebble game, but that doesn't mean the article shouldn't exist. It's okay for an article to have a relatively narrow audience. Colin M (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I hadn't considered the arguments around WP:SPLIT. For each world championship article, we are giving all the games, sometimes with commentary.  This article is just breaking out one of the games, and expanding on it, just as one sees with subtopics of larger, more heavyweight articles.  While I do not think this was warranted, there is room for disagreement, and anyway Wikipedia is full of splits that were not warranted, and not much harm done.  I am not changing my !vote, but I won't lose any sleep over this, and I should thank the editor for the effort he has put into it.
 * I'll make a few more comments, while I am here:
 * The commentary on the moves should, perhaps must, be sourced. I know that there are examples of unsourced commentary in various articles, but for articles that really matter, you can't even put an exclam or a question mark on a move, without citing a source.
 * The match has turned into a dud, with Nepo losing two games due to elementary blunders. When the match is over, the chess world is going to be eager to forget about it.  This will probably accelerate the process by which the chess world forgets how notable this game was.  Sigh.
 * I've said it before but I'll say it again: content does not determine notability (WP:CONTN).  Notability is determined solely by coverage in reliable sources.  Why do I even have to say this?  How can it be that umpteen editors, most of them presumably not complete novices, are saying "notable because the game set a record for longest world championship game"?  That's crazy!  What happens when the record is broken?  Does the game become non-notable then?  Are we the Guinness Book of Records, or are we Wikipedia?  Bruce leverett (talk) 06:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact correction: the commentary is sourced (source provided at the end, to avoid WP:CITEBOMB - chessbase.com, with annotations by Anish Giri). Your next point is personal opinion and needs no further answer than the comments you are objecting to in your final point. As for that one, you make a valid claim about WP:NTEMPORARY, but A) sources are reporting on this, and sources take precedence over your personal misgivings about the relevance of the record B) this isn't the kind of record that gets beaten every second day, is it? In any case, I find it ill-judged to be making pronouncements about the long-term significance of this so early after it (there's not a snowball's chance in hell such a judgement is correct in a case like this one). There's a credible claim for it to have such significance. Whether it turns out to or not is something that only time will tell, and keeping it in a separate article, where a more in-depth analysis than what is possible on the main page can be given, and where the coverage of the game beyond the mere chess element is detailed in the additional sections which would clearly be hard to include on the main page, does no harm, at least for the time being. If it encourages the creation of articles on other significant-but-not-so-far-covered games, it is actually positively improving the encyclopedia.RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, TOOSOON/NOTNEWS apply. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not only have you not presented any argument why to delete and not merge; you haven't presented any at all. Your comment is the textbook WP:VAGUEWAVE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Several supporters of merging the article mention WP:NOTNEWS, but without explaining exactly how this article is in violation. Wikipedia's home page has a section at the upper right corner called "In the news" and we can learn about a volcano erupting, farmer protests succeeding and two women being elected to lead their countries. In the the last two decades, acceptable articles about hundreds of thousands of recent events have been created. NOTNEWS has four sections: Original reporting, News reports, Who's who and Celebrity gossip and diary. The only one thar can possibly apply is News reports, which says The key word is "routine". It should be clear to anyone that this record setting game was the complete opposite of routine. It was highly unusual and therefore notable in several different ways. Therefore, NOTNEWS simply does not apply to this article. Cullen328 (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. This game is already being described as an "all time classic" in later mainstream (non-chess-specific) coverage of the championship . I think it is not too early to call it independently notable, in a way that none of the other games so far in this championship can meet. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears to be exaggeration from the media rather than an informed opinion from chess-related sources. Also, I would argue that Carlsen's streak of undefeated classical games is more notable than the streak of draws in the WCC, yet there's no article for Carlsen's streak-breaking game. If an article was to be created to remark the streak of draws, it should be listed as a record rather than an article of the game itself. The same point can be made for having the most number of moves played in a WCC game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:101:F000:701:8EF4:EAD:65FE:D001 (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: The basic notability guidelines of Wikipedia would make ANY World Championship Chess match taking place eligible for their own articles under GNG. They clearly get significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. So then it comes down to "It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy". The only thing remotely applicable would be WP:NOTNEWS, section 2, News reports. Of which the key section is "routine news reporting of sports is not a sufficient basis for inclusion". This game is not a "routine" game (the record breaking, being a win in a world championship match, and being a game in a world championship match, any of those 3 are non-routine) and neither is the coverage of it. The game itself is an event of enduring notability taking place within a Championship of enduring notability. As an aside, I would apply the idea of enduring notability to all decisive matches in a World Chess Championship match due to the inevitable enduring notability of a non-routine won/lost game in the world title match, and consider any won game (and any significant drawn games) to be worthy of their own articles as they will cover GNG and nothing in the "Not" guidelines can exclude them. I see a lot of "well XYZ sport" didn't have an article for "Game Whatever". So what, those special games probably deserve their own articles as well. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with nominator that articles for individual chess games are unusual, but this game Actually Qualifies - setting a new length record in a championship match will do that.  First round matches at tennis tournaments don't usually get separate articles, either, but Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships does for the exact same reason as this game.  Sufficient sources exist to pass WP:GNG.  SnowFire (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per The Most Comfortable Chair. - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Longest world championship game in history makes it undoubtedly notable. Lazer-kitty (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And yet the previous record-holder didn't have an article? Double sharp (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That game ended in a draw and wasn't influential in deciding the winner of the '78 series. The 2021 game was both long and influential.  SnowFire (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I've noticed an argument being made that this chess game should be deleted because there are other, more notable chess games that do not have articles. That is not a criteria for deletion in Wikipedia. There are lots of notable things that don't have articles in Wikipedia. Lots of towns in Africa don't have articles. I regularly come across national level non-western politicians who don't have their own articles. Wikipedia is not complete! If this is a problem, please go ahead and create a whole series of articles describing some more notable games! 109.153.222.124 (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep As argued above, invoking WP:NOTNEWS is misplaced here. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep though a merge would also be fine. It's too soon to say this is the defining match of Carlsen's career, but it could well be. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 21:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no chance this will be considered the defining game of Carlson's career (which also includes defeating World Champion Vishy Anand, and presumably losing to the next World Champion), but it may become one of the defining games of Melo's career 156.111.111.73 (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Strong indications of notability developing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge The game is great but we don't have articles on other games simply based on if they broke records, such as the previous record holder Karpov-Korchnoi game 5 1978, or even if they were extremely beautiful games in WC match, as is the case with numerous WC games. Additionally while the game is being covered in several press/news reports so is every other game in the world championship match. If the game retains significant notability after the match maybe a separate article would be warranted but for now I don't see why the information couldn't be contained in the original match article. CeviLevita (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Not only is it significant because of the length in time and moves, and a decisive result, the game is an example of a very significant imbalance (Queen vs. two rooks) maintained for a very long time. With this distinction, the precise play of both players, and the other notable characteristics above, I think it is worthy of its own article already and the notability of the game may further increase over time. Sunstar13 (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak Merge. The two notable things about it is that it is the longest World Championship game and one that ended a long string of draws.  I don't think that these alone are sufficient to have the game merit its own article.  Those are facts that are incidental to the game.  Otherwise, it is not nearly as notable as, say, the sixth Fisher-Spasky game in 1972.  None of the 1972 World Championship games have their own articles - not even game 6. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The 1972 games not having a Wiki page is not a valid reason for this page to be merged. If anything, pages should be created on those games (a Google search shows significant non-routine coverage on 1972’s game 6, though that is not the subject of this AFD)  Frank   Anchor  04:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The point is that I think at least several other games are more deserving of an article than this one. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge Per WP:NOPAGE, it isn't always necessary for a notable topic to have a standalone article. In this case I think the reader would be better served by having the information presented in the context of the match. There is room in the match article for the moves, analysis and reaction to the game. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable for record move count, breaking WC draw streak, and now the pivotal and psychological turning point of the match. BBQboffin (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge, maybe with redirect. Yes, this game is unusual for this WCC, but I think really this game isn't so famous like Game of the Century, Evergreen Game, Deep Blue versus Kasparov, 1997, Game 6 and others. No edition of Wikipedia except English, don't have separate article for this game. In Russian Wikipedia (the main edition of Wikipedia in Russia) I and other users interesting in chess won't plan to create a separate article about this party. - Brateevsky ( talk to me ) 08:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What other Wikipedias do is exactly none of our concern. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable for record move count and coverage of the event is more than routine. --Enos733 (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep and Trout nominator - WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid deletion rationale, nor is a lack of previous articles. This is far more notable than the hundreds of articles we have on random second-division NASCAR races. It is a large enough article now that WP:NOTMERGE point 1 applies. - "Ghost of  Dan Gurney"  19:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable chess game.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 20:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's notable for its move count, then Korchnoi vs. Karpov should have already had an article. Thus, it is notable through the help of the recent coverage. To be frank, the other games in the match also garnered significant coverage, so this situation is akin to a game in a world championship series for sports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:101:F000:701:8EF4:EAD:65FE:D001 (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge per WP:NOPAGE. Has a clear parent topic where this material can go. A niche statistic like "longest game played by number of moves in a world chess championship match" doesn't make something automatically notable. The test will be whether it continues to get a disproportionately high degree of coverage apart from routine coverage of the championship match after it's over. The present article relies on routine coverage that would exist for basically any first-decisive-game-of-a-championship, and it's part of what makes the championship so notable. It might wind up showing WP:LASTING significance, but there's no point having a separate article until that's demonstrated, and no reason the reliably sourced part of this article can't be mostly preserved in the main article. The unreliable sourced part (a bunch of "reactions" sourced just to tweets? come on) should be removed regardless. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 22:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - Why does the Evergreen Game have an article? Obviously wikipedia considers it notable for some reason. Is it because it's important? Not really, it was just a casual game between friends, later recalled and published by the winner. Was it a fantastic game? Not really. Anderssen probably wouldn't have played the vastly inferior 17.Nf6+?! in a serious game when a simple win of material was available, but he probably wanted to have a little fun. Was it because the final combination is so brilliant? It's certainly spectacular, contributing to the game's fame, but it wasn't totally sound - at least 3 good alternatives to 19...Qxf3? have been found that lead to a probable draw. In the end, the game is notable simply because it is famous, having been published and analyzed in (probably) thousands of books and magazines. This is why wikipedia considers the game worthy of an article.


 * Articles are rarely created for individual chess games, because very few chess games are sufficiently notable, and fewer still are notable outside of the context of the event at which they took place. WP:NOPAGE is very clear on this point - the game is not significant independently of the match in which it was played. As pointed out by Rododendrites, the article also has sourcing and original research issues (I don't see a single citation in the annotations, for example).


 * I reject the use of the WP:OSE essay (yes, essay) to lazily dismiss arguments based on WP:PRECEDENT. Precedent does matter on wikipedia, as it is indicative of consensus. If 10 different articles about movies use a similar layout, that's because the evolved consensus at wikipedia is that this is the preferred layout for articles on movies. And if articles are rarely created for individual chess games, that's because very chess games are notable outside of the context of the event in which they occurred. To say already that this game is independently notable has an air of WP:CRYSTALBALL about it - has it appeared in any anthologies of classic chess games? Has it been voted game of the year by some famous publication? GMs tweeting the annoyingly oversued word "epic" is not indicative of long term notability, it just means the game was very very long.


 * 134 moves is a long game indeed, but it's not such a big deal - games of 200+ moves are not unknown. This one just happened to take place in a World Championship. This record is likely to get broken again, and that game is unlikely to be independently notable either. Neither was the 5th game of the Karpov-Korchnoi match isn't (it was a truly awful game where Korchnoi missed a simple mate). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I agree about the crystal ball aspect, but I believe it cuts the other way.  See WP:RAPID.  A very common pattern on Wikipedia is some event happens, an article is spun off, someone immediately nominates it for deletion, but the notability only continues to increase and the AFD was essentially a waste.  If this game really was No Big Deal, I think you'd have a better case for a merge in 6 months if there's complete radio silence after the initial burst of activity.  Right now it looks very notable based on the coverage it got, and the crystal ball is saying it wasn't.  SnowFire (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there really that much more coverage of game 6 compared to the other games in this match? Double sharp (talk) 04:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Keep's strongest arguments are that the game broke notable records and that the game received significant attention. From the perspective of the chess world, the records are footnote-worthy and can be summarized in a few sentences. It is clear that the coverage has already moved on to the future games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:101:F000:701:8EF4:EAD:65FE:D001 (talk) 04:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with Max. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * , I would agree that PRECEDENT (an essay, not policy) could indeed be an indicator of consensus, but when it comes to areas that are heavily visited by readers and editors alike. I would not consider precedent to be a determinant of consensus in any case, and more often than not, precedent is merely an indicator of a pattern rather than broad agreement over minor details. Case in point would be the infobox issue where even after months of deliberations, editors were unsure as to how to go about it in select cases — despite the fact that there was a clear "pattern" or "precedent" that was previously employed through most articles. Which emphasizes my point that we need to look each game individually.
 * I concede that a game's association with some factor will obviously influence its coverage — I will even argue that sometimes it could also be the only defining aspect which confers the coverage that game would end up receiving. The Evergreen Game could potentially be notable only and only because it was played by Adolf Anderssen, one of the most important chess players in the game's early history. We cannot argue that this was the only "analyzable" game from that time, but it did end up being analyzed much more than any other game from that time. On a fundamental level, one can attribute the game's coverage to it being played by one of the leading players in the sport's history of that time. It was not a game between two casual and unknown players. In a similar way, this game's notability can be derived from it being played and breaking records in a world championship match. Clearly there are games that are more analyzable than this game, just as there could be more games that are analyzable from the 19th century. But the games that do end up being analyzed will have some association with a factor that was more inherently notable to begin with. This game has been analyzed in news sources in context of breaking significant world championship records, which is non-routine coverage according to me and others in this discussion. A 236-move game, played outside of a world championship, will not be important enough to be analyzed — just as a "brilliancy" from the 19th-century will not be important enough to be analyzed if it was played by two insignificant chess players.
 * From how I see this, the "precedent" — more accurately, the "pattern" — that we have about not creating individual articles on chess games stems from a relative lack of interest in the area (as I have noted above). So far as I know, we have not even had an RfC on this topic, let alone a well-participated discussion on how to evaluate notability when it comes to individual chess games. The one "well-participated" discussion on this topic that I can point to would be this AfD itself, which to me dispels the argument that precedent was even an indicator of consensus about notability of individual chess games. That is why we need to look at games individually and decide what can and cannot be considered notable, in absence of a community-based agreement on specific guidelines or policy. — <b style="color:#000000">The Most Comfortable</b> <b style="color:#8A2BE2">Chair</b> 08:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't think the records broken are the only sign of this game's importance any more as it becomes clear that it has critically impacted the continuation of the match. Chess commentators hold the opinion that it psychologically affected Nepomniactchi's play afterwards and even Carlsen himself said after Game 8 that his win didn't happen without the first one. The game's importance would've faded away had Nepomniactchi bounced back and kept the match alive; instead, he made blunders which are rarely seen in World Chess Championship matches and were attributed to his loss in Game 6. This is a clear indication of impact, which adds to its overall importance.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A best-of-x series favors the leader since they only have to play for draws; Fischer knew this and took advantage in his match in 1972. When Carlsen said that his win couldn't have come without the first one, it was because Nepomniachtchi was inherently forced to take risks thanks to the format. Was there a psychological factor? Yes, but probably much after Game 6. His first unacceptable blunder occurred in Game 8. GMs attribute his poor second-half performance to his lack of experience with longer tournaments.
 * Well, we have a recent precedent too: Anand-Gelfand game 8 in 2012. It was the shortest decisive game in the history of the World Chess Championship and got significant coverage at the time. It was also important for wiping out Gelfand's lead in the match, and brought it to tiebreaks where Anand got the victory. And yet now it doesn't seem important enough for a separate article. Double sharp (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And what about Kramnik-Leko 2004 game 14? That was a really rare occurrence, only the third time the defending champion saved his title by winning the last game on demand (other times were Lasker-Schlechter 1910 and Kasparov-Karpov 1987). In fact, due to the changed format, this can't happen again unless it gets all the way to Armageddon! But does it seem important enough for an article now? Double sharp (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you confuse 'notable' and 'important'. 'Notable', as far as Wikipedia is concerned, is usually employed as a verification if there are sufficient goods sources to write an acceptable article (as opposed to a chess database entry) (WP:GNG), and if this article will actually contain information of encyclopedic interest and not mundane and boring trivia (WP:NOT). The article at this time does not seem to clearly fail either of these criteria (although in in few months time, once the WC match is over, that this gets forgotten in the footnotes of history - although with so many commentating on how this game appears to have had a decisive influence on the [now almost certain] outcome of the match, the converse is obviously also possible. Hence why I again suggest that people stop making bold and inaccurate predictions as to the long-term significance of this now: it is impossible to tell, and there's no harm done in having this discussion in a few months time when everything is clearer). Additionally, as far as I see, neither of these requires that the subject of the article be "important" to the subjective mind of editors. As for other chess games, if some of them deserve articles and they don't have one, and you have sufficient sources to write articles which are more than pure analysis, then you should go and do so. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you may have missed my point, though I suppose I did indeed mean "notable" when I said "important". :) I don't think those games deserve articles. Their significance appears to exist as part of the match and nothing else, and about all else you'd find is pure analysis. (Feel free to prove me wrong; that would make me willing to reconsider.) What I don't see is how that's any different from the current case. We have much coverage, but only as part of coverage of the entire match. Okay, it's too early to be able to tell, but judging from the 2012 and 2004 precedents we have no reason to think that the game will turn out notable outside the context of the match. Is this on the level of something like the Immortal Draw that lent its players' names to an opening variation and is still being imitated today to prearrange draws? I have my doubts.
 * That being said, there's probably a good case indeed for creating an article on Karpov-Kasparov 1985 game 16. Maybe I'll do that when I have time, so thanks for the inspiration. :) Double sharp (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Can't source my WP:CHESSENGINE research, but the annotations to that game look seriously flawed to me. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep – notable game as noted extensively above. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak keep I do think it's notable, and I also think it's notable enough for a stand-alone article. I merely preface my !vote with a "weak" keep since there seems to be a level of disagreement about what is and what is not a notable chess match. We do have a premise that once something is notable, it's permanently notable, but this is an exceptionally rare edge case which I could see going back to AfD in ten years if nothing more comes of it. SportingFlyer  T · C  00:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong keep If this game is not noteworthy than someone better inform The New York Times and The Guardian about that. Hochithecreator (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm impressed the coverage is so good we have articles on individual games, but I would avoid commentary like "Carlsen was probably trying to survive the time trouble and get a promising position", "probably" and "perhaps" are not based on fact and should be avoided in an encyclopedia. Going back in time I'd love to see lots of articles like this. I can't believe Karpov-Kasparov 1985 Game 16 is missing, astonishing brilliance!₪ Encyclopædius  16:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Notability is subjective, I will admit, but based on the amount of coverage this game has, I'd say it's totally worth having a separate article. It's not like there is insufficient information or anything. "Unusual" is not a strong argument to determine if something should be kept. -- Diriector_Doc ├─────┤<sup style="margin-left:-5em">Talk <sub style="margin:0 1em 0 -1.8em">Contribs  20:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep 538, NYT (Paywall warning), The Guardian, all of which are reliable sources which have non-trivial coverage of this game. That’s WP:THREE. Samboy (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As a caution, THREE is not a valid means to judge notability, we're looking for significant coverage in multiple sources. But that said, any one of these clearly shows wholly devoted coverage to this one game, so the sources from high-quality and non-routine outlets for chess are valid for notability purposes. --M asem (t) 01:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:THREE is an essay, yes, but it’s also pretty good rule of thumb I have seen used in multiple AfD discussions. In the deletion discussion for my own little contribution to the Internet, one voter felt two sources was enough: “I have not checked the other sources mentioned, but the first two I mentioned are enough for the article to pass general notability guidelines” Samboy (talk) 04:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The "keep" voters have not addressed the WP:NOPAGE concern. There is no reason the content can't be accommodated within the World Chess Championship 2021 article. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s established that single chess games can have Wikipedia articles: Immortal Game, Evergreen Game, Opera Game, Deep Blue versus Kasparov, 1996, Game 1, Botvinnik versus Capablanca, AVRO 1938, etc. Looking at the argument those are long standing famous games, Kasparov vs. World had a Wikipedia page just a few years after the game.  Samboy (talk) 04:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The point is that none of those were match games (with the exception of Deep Blue which had the unique "computer defeats World Champion" angle). This game has a natural parent article. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Botvinnik versus Capablanca, AVRO 1938 has a natural parent: AVRO 1938 chess tournament — Samboy (talk) 04:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe that WP:NOPAGE is canceled out by WP:NOTMERGE point 1. Merging at this time would make the article unbalanced and clunky. - "Ghost of  Dan Gurney"  21:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep A lot of content in the article is of encyclopaedic interest but cannot be merged into the main World Chess Championship 2021 article as that would create WP:UNDUE concerns on that article. WP:NOPAGE is thereby addressed. There's no question to the notability of this individual game given the sources available. As to whether it will still be considered relevant 10 years down the line, it's hard to tell at this point, but it seems more likely than not. – SD0001  (talk) 06:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What exactly is undue here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.125.0 (talk) 09:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Since it is a record setting game. lkitross (talk) 07:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as a notable game in many ways. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Most individual games of any sport are not given articles as their coverage falls in WP:NOT.I would expect that if you looked for source for Game 5 of this series, you'd find it limited to the chess-based sources, and mostly a summary, which would be routine and not eligible for an article. This game clearly has coverage above and beyond the routine sourcing (in many mainstream outlets) and give give reason for why it is not just a routine game, and eligible for a standalone article. --M asem (t) 01:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SPINOFF: I agree with SD0001 that a merge would lead to WP:UNDUE issues. One does not need the context of the entire World Chess Championship to understand the game annotations, so I do not see any "specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable" (per WP:NOPAGE) that could only be addressed through a merge. Neither NOPAGE nor any other policy requires that article topics be "independently" notable. Any topic will have a "natural parent article", but that alone is not a WP:MERGEREASON. Cobblet (talk) 03:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The newspaper Aftenposten posted three articles about this game, stating that a whole book could be written about it. Hogne (talk) 08:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per SD0001 and the fact that coverage in mainstream news is very much not routine for chess games, especially so if what said above is true, though I couldn't verify it in a quick search (to be fair, I don't know Norwegian).  ev iolite   (talk)  14:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.