Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have beaten Garry Kasparov in chess


 * 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. Secret account 20:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

List of people who have beaten Garry Kasparov in chess

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

List full of original research and there is not any notability. Since quite a few people have beaten him, there's nothing really extremely special here. Beerest355 Talk 21:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * What part of this list do you think is unverifiable? postdlf (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, original research wasn't the term I meant to use here. It's more of the fact that we can't be sure that every single person here has beaten Garry Kasparov, and even then, there's no real notability to a list of people who have beaten him. It's not as if this is an incredibly rare feat as it seems a good amount of people have beaten him. Beerest355 Talk 22:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * delete not quite "list of teams who have beaten the New York Yankees", but the message mostly is that beating the top-ranked chess player isn't terribly remarkable. I also would question the verifiability of the list. Mangoe (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The NY Yankees have lost to every team in the American League and several in the National League, and that is from a small set. Only a tiny fraction of all chess players have beaten Kasparov.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Even the best lose occasionally. They lose before they become #1, during their reign (unless you're Rocky Marciano or a few others), and afterward. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete for the reasons given above. There are others too (e.g. Fischer?). These kind of lists get used for Bacon numbers and not a lot else - i.e. "I beat someone who beat someone who beat Kasparov". Hardly a good enough reason for an article in my opinion. Brittle heaven (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Question: Out of curiosity, do you think List of people who have beaten Bobby Fischer in chess should be deleted as well? I'm not neutral on that particular question as I put a fair amount of time into that article, providing references and some descriptive text to go along with the names.  (I did the majority of that work as an anon in October 2006, but some later as well.  The article could be improved quite a bit, and if I were doing it today I would use inline cites for Mednis and probably cite Wade & O'Connell as well.)  In Fischer's case of course there is a book devoted exclusively to discussing all of his tournament losses, so that could be seen as different than the situation with Kasparov.  I think potentially this article could look more like the Bobby Fischer losses page and even have better sourcing, but of course that won't happen if it is deleted.  Quale (talk) 05:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/List of people who have beaten Bobby Fischer in chess (2nd nomination). Mangoe (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I disagree with the "unverifiable" claim. One just needs to visit a good on-line chess database such as chessgames.com and search for Kasparov's losses.


 * Also, besides this page, there are also the pages List of people who have beaten José Raúl Capablanca in chess, List of people who have beaten Alexander Alekhine in chess, List of people who have beaten Paul Morphy in chess, List of people who have beaten Emanuel Lasker in chess and List of people who have beaten Bobby Fischer in chess. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - such a list cannot be verifiably exhaustive. Did a friend beat him when he was little, for example? Same goes for the rest of the "List of people who have beaten XYZ in chess" articles. All fail WP:LISTN, as well. I suggest bundling them. Ansh666 06:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. You're wrong about verifiability.  All tournament games of the major chess players are available, and the lists say nothing about off-hand games.  A book has been written exclusively devoted to Bobby Fischer's tournament losses.  Did you actually read List of people who have beaten Bobby Fischer in chess, or are you just basing this on what you think you know about the subject? Quale (talk) 06:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * From the title, who said this had to be about tournament losses? Ansh666 07:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What has the title got to do with it? I expect the lead of a list article to explain the criteria used for the list items, and the lead can be improved if necessary.  If the title needs to be made more clear you should try WP:RM instead.  Quale (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Remember that the title and lead have to be clear to someone who doesn't have knowledge on the subject (like me). Moving them all to "List of people who have beaten XYZ in a chess tournament" would clarify this, but I'm still not sure about WP:LISTN for all, with the possible exception of Fischer. chessgames.com IMO is more of a primary source. It also seems to fall somewhat afoul of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Ansh666 00:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:LISTN is not an exclusive gateway for lists. It could also be potentially justified per WP:LISTPURP as a navigational list of notable people by a significant shared fact (if having beaten Kasparov is such a fact, I don't know), or as an informational list in furtherance of covering Kasparov himself and WP:SPLIT due to WP:SIZE concerns. postdlf (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Chessgames.com is a primary source here? It isn't. It publishes chess games, instead of creating them. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "database of historical chess games combined with discussion forums" - does it discuss these losses at length as a set, with editorial oversight? Ansh666 05:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge (and prune) in Garry Kasparov main article. -- cyclopia  speak!  11:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Weak keep - Sjakkalle found there is a book about the subject, so there is some claim for the subject to be notable. I would prefer however to have it as a list of lost games, which is probably more interesting and close to sources than the people.--  cyclopia  speak!  11:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not original research, and indeed a study of Kasparov's losses has been the subject of an entire book, How to beat Garry Kasparov that collected all of his losses. Concerning the scope of the list, it is quite OK to limit it to a fixed criterion (e.g. after Kasparov became a GM or after Kasparov became World Champion) and to impose the limit that they must be tournament games. Games databases such as ChessBase and the like are exhaustive for tournament games between top players. Sjakkalle  (Check!)  11:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Will change my !vote accordingly. -- cyclopia  speak!  11:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing the same situation as with the Fischer book (which not a surprise, as one is surely modelled on the other): this is a book about the games and about Kasparov's failure to play well at times, not so much about the particular people who beat him. Here's the blurb from Amazon: "Even Kasparov is human. This book analyses all of his major lost games up to 1990 and tries to draw common conclusions about how to defeat the very greatest." It seems that here, as with the Fischer book, the part of the book that they felt was important is being ignored. Also, it is easy enough to find columns and on occasion even booklets about individual games. Does that mean that any game that has ever been written up is notable? Does it mean that every match played by Kasparov or Fischer is notable? Mangoe (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would the individual games need to merit their own separate articles? I don't know how that's a useful question here. postdlf (talk) 13:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a question I didn't ask. My point is that there doesn't seem to be much of a limit as to what is written up about chess matches. Back in my chess-playing childhood there was a regular column in the Wash. Post, among many other publications. So: do these write-ups make each of these games notable?


 * Let me put the problem another way: these books all admit that it's common for the top people to be beaten, and they are very interested in how people manage to beat them. The fact of all these defeats, however, makes it less than remarkable that specific people beat them. In Fischer's case the statistics were that people playing at his level had about a fifty-fifty chance of losing outright and about a one-in-five chance beating him; but surely a number of these people played him more than once, and beat him on on occasion and lost on another, and maybe played to a draw on a third. The genre of books seems consistently to be interested in the analysis of Fischer's or Kasparov's or whomever's weaknesses, and that's exactly what the articles here are not interested in. Mangoe (talk) 13:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Asking if "each of these games" is "notable" is asking whether the games each merit their own separate article, because that's what notable means here. Did you mean to use another word other than notable each of the times you've used it? postdlf (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Too highly detailed information for a general encyclopedia per IINFO. It might be better to highlight the more notable losses (in matches that themselves were notable) than to list all who defeated him. --M ASEM (t) 13:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete For the same reasons I mentioned at the Fischer one. Not all of Kasporov's defeats are notable; the important ones he had to people should be mentioned at his article and the ones he had to computers should be mentioned at the article on those computers  p  b  p  15:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep well sourced and WP:N isn't an issue here. Given that nearly all of the folks listed are blue links and given the sourcing including a book dedicated to his losses, I don't see a problem. I'm not seeing a lot of policy-based arguments other than IINFO. And I just don't see how that applies. "...provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." seems easily met. (This is a cut-and-paste comment from another AfD but the same situation is here as well). Probably would be best to be sure these AfDs that have similar sourcing (nearly identical really) close the same way. Hobit (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sjakkalle. This list is (barely) notable,  Tazerdadog (talk) 05:46, 16 July 2013 (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.