Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/José Rubinstein


 * 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. There are questions about sourcing, which may take more time. But with no one arguing for deletion, this discussion does not need to continue. Star  Mississippi  16:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

José Rubinstein

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Chess player article been on the cat:nn list for more than 10 years. Unable to locate coverage. Potentially notable.  scope_creep Talk  10:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant coverage of him is likely available in Argentine print media of the 1960s,especially from the Tucumán area. A few such local news reports are reproduced by the Ajedrez historico site and cited in the article. See e.g., this compilation of the extensive coverage in local media sources of his 100% score at the 1961 Tucumán provincial championship. The books on the 1961 national championship and Mar del Plata 1962 tournaments may also have significant coverage. For the last 22 years, the Villa Martelli chess club has organized an annual tournament in his memory, which also speaks to the subject's notability. Cobblet (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That all seems to be primary sources at the moment. Where is the secondary sources. There is not one thing I can grasp that would validate the article.   scope_creep Talk  16:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It would appear neither you nor I have access to a library in Argentina. I do not see the point in asking for coverage in secondary sources when we cannot access said secondary sources. Based on the sampling of coverage in primary sources we can see, the popularity of chess in Argentina (especially during the relevant time period), and the fact that modern-day events continue to be held in honour of this person, I'd say it's likely that notability could be established in such secondary sources if we knew what they were and could access them. Cobblet (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * None of that addresses the problem. Your keep doesn't count for much, as you have not proven your argument per WP:V. The form at Afd is put at least three references that are secondary to prove the individual is notable. The references you have put are either primary or Non-RS.
 * The first ref you put is a blog. It is WP:SPS source and is Non-RS.
 * The second ref you put in an auction site. It is unreliable and Non-RS.
 * The third ref you put up is an event listing. It is unreliable and Non-RS.
 * The article refs:
 * It is wikipedia, and illegal link and Non-RS.
 * The 2nd is malware link, or drive-by malware. It is Non-RS.
 * The 3rd article is ref is machine generate listing with no context. He came in 10th in 1962, which makes him mediocre and is unreliable source. Making it Non-RS
 * They are junk refs. The article has been on the cat:nn with no sources for more than 10 years. That is no coverage otherwise it would already be in the article.   scope_creep Talk  19:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The first ref I linked to is a blog post, yes, but one compiling several contemporaneous news reports of a tournament José Rubinstein won. I do not see any of the concerns with this source that would make WP:SPS relevant, since I see no reason why we should not trust the veracity of the quoted news reports. The other two auction sites I linked to demonstrate the existence of books documenting major tournaments José Rubinstein participated in. You have not given any reason why said books would be unreliable. Your comments regarding the references in the article make even less sense, but that's a moot point, since none of them would constitute significant coverage of the subject, so I will not discuss them further with you. Cobblet (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I have found a better reference for his finish in the 1961 Argentine championship. I found a cross table of the Mar del Plata 1962 tournament in Chess Review, July 1962 (won by Polugaevsky, Robert Byrne got a GM norm), but Rubinstein wasn't in it; the KIM tournament (what does that stand for?) and the Latino-Americano tournament in the same year in the same city were not mentioned in Chess Life or Chess Review in the United States.  Bruce leverett (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That link you put in non-rs as its unreliable. It is worse than the last one. It is more of the same. Very poor or non-existant references.   scope_creep Talk  18:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The link cites the October 1961 Revista Ajedrez, a well-respected and long-running Argentinian magazine. You have provided no reason to doubt the correctness of the citation or the crosstable itself. Cobblet (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I noticed this. This website gives credit to Revista Ajedrez.  It would be possible for me to follow through with this, by finding a copy of Revista Ajedrez, looking it over, and citing it instead of citing the website.  The drawback of this would be that for both me and (most of) our readers, the website is much easier to access than the 1961 print magazine.  I don't know the best resolution of this dilemma. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no dilemma. Indeed it would be ideal to track down the original magazine and give a full citation with page number from it. But even if we were to do that, it would still make sense to also cite the website, for precisely the accessibility reasons you state. We give multiple citations for a single fact all the time. Cobblet (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * KIM is short for Kimberley, a chess club that may have been related to or affiliated with the sports club Kimberley de Mar del Plata. Cobblet (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Where is the editorial control section on the site? It is listing of information, making it a blog and its WP:SPS source. It says at the bottom of the wordpress page. It is non-RS. I have a sneaking feeling you folk that write these Chess don't really know consistutes a real secondary sources per WP:SECONARY. I understand that chess is a bit of a closed world. I was in the primary school, high school and university chess teams, so I've some understanding of it, but this is an encyclopeadia and the notability guidelines state for a BLP, there must be secondary sources to validate the article. So far it fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV.    scope_creep Talk  22:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The blog is quoting a well-respected chess magazine which is a secondary source for the player's tournament result. Please read Identifying and using self-published works, and comment on content, not on the contributors. Cobblet (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment More "comment", rather than "keep" or "delete", because I have questions to which I don't know the answers.


 * I have added a source for Mar del Plata KIM 1962, which is the same source we are using in Hector Rossetto. However, 365Chess is not a reliable source.  I have found errors in 365Chess tournament reports, and I don't know of a way to get them corrected.  So this is not a good situation.
 * I have found references to the victory in a Fischer simul in chessgames.com and in YouTube. But these are not reliable sources either.  Beating Fischer in a simul is not the kind of thing that instantly confers notability, so I wonder what the big deal is, or was.  Perhaps part of the notability arose from the fact that a player strong enough to compete in the national championship condescended to be one of the "customers" of the simul.
 * Ideally, for coverage of his 5th place in the Argentine championship, one would like to see more than just a crosstable. But finding this will probably involve looking through a lot of Spanish-language material, and since this is English Wikipedia, it might not happen right away.  WP:N does not say that notability is a language-specific construct, but this kind of situation makes me feel like it is.  Bruce leverett (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A news report would be ideal. Translate news or the another suitable term into spanish and then search on that term. DeepL can be used to do the translation. Currently the article has no secondary sources. They are very poor profile and machine generated data pages, references and a 404. That are junk. The blog is just that. The best that can be done for this is Draftify it, became at it doesn't meet WP:V to meet WP:BIO or WP:SIGCOV. When a do a WP:BEFORE. There is nothing there.     scope_creep Talk  17:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added a source giving the crosstable for Mar del Plata 1962, and a source for the win in the Fischer simul. The second source is unambiguously a secondary source. Cobblet (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a script which shows you what references are unreliable. Its worth getting. References 2,3,4,5,6, 8 are unreliable and must come out. Once you get the script you will see it. It is used by the afc/npp folk, articles reviews to reviews references. It is very helpful.  scope_creep Talk  05:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Reliability of a source can only be determined by competent editors examining the source, not by any automated script. A source can be self-published and yet still be reliable: there is no blanket rule against using self-published sources in an article that is not a BLP. As I have already explained to you multiple times, the blog you take issue with is directly reproducing reliable, non-self-published sources, such as articles from La Gaceta. And we are citing the blog not for any sort of analysis or synthetic claim, but only for specific facts regarding Jose Rubinstein's tournament results that are not open to interpretation. Moreover, said facts are corroborated by reliable secondary sources where those are available (e.g., Di Felice's Chess Results, a standard reference for chess historians which I have now also cited), which speaks to the blog's reliability. Therefore the use of this blog for this narrow purpose is justified, and allows people who don't have access to Di Felice to independently verify the claims made in the article. Again, please read Identifying and using self-published works, particularly the section "Self-published doesn't mean a source is automatically invalid." Cobblet (talk) 06:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the 365Chess source and cited di Felice instead for the Kimberley club tournament, as well as the blog. Cobblet (talk) 06:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   16:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've taken them out. They are unreliable. I review article as part of AFC/NPP. All the script is formalise those rules. Di Felice's Chess Results is an not a reliable source. Find something better. It is primary as well. I'm not seeing any attempt to try and find better sources.    scope_creep Talk  07:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You have not cited a single scrap of policy or guideline that supports your contention that this blog cannot be used. Have you read Identifying and using self-published works yet? Calling Di Felice a primary source is absurd and suggests you have no concept what a primary source is. How was Di Felice close to or directly involved with chess tournaments that happened in Argentina 60 years ago? Why do you think Di Felice is unreliable? Cobblet (talk) 07:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I took out the wrong one, didn't I. Ref 2,3,4,5 and 7 and 8 are unreliable. I took them out. That is probably sufficient to satisfy WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO now.   scope_creep Talk  07:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You still have not explained what makes you think the Ajedrez historico blog is unreliable. No policy on Wikipedia states that SPSs are inherently unreliable and cannot be used under any circumstance. The reasons why the blog is cited have been laid out above, and you have not responded to them at all. Carrying out an edit war when a discussion is taking place is unacceptable behaviour. Using an automated script is not a substitute for critically evaluating a source. Cobblet (talk) 07:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment I have found several more reliable sources that discuss Jose Rubinstein (in Spanish). I am not sure the proper etiquette to share them to add to the discussion. Wether to share them here, or to contribute to the article. There are many articles about tournaments in his honor organized by one of Argentina´s biggest chess clubs, as well as an article from La Gaceta de Tucumán, the biggest newspaper of the area, discussing the simul against Bobby Fischer. Pazguillermo (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Cobblet. The RS that prove his notability are there. Ok that in the WP article, a number of citations are via a blog that scanned them, but this doesn't invalidate them. Alexcalamaro (talk) 05:27, 11 May 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.