Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valerian Onitiu


 * 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 No concensus (default keep). JERRY talk contribs 03:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Valerian Onitiu

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

There is nothing in the article but some gibberish. Should have been speedied but for reasons foreign to me that was declined. If the editor truly wants more time to develop a useful article this will give them that time Oni Ookami Alfador Talk 01:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Looks like a chess puzzle.  But I'm pretty sure that a single chess puzzle on its own won't be able to make WP:N unless sources are forthcoming.  --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Actually, the article state that it's a person who makes puzzles, not a puzzle. While this certainly shows the article isn't completely clear, it doesn't mean the article shouldn't stay.  Please re-vote in light of the fact that it's a person, not a puzzle. -- Masterzora (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I couldn't tell. Still delete as the subject appears to fail WP:N and WP:BIO criteria.  --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep, as WP:N says: The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Onitiu was well known chess problem composer. --AndrejJ (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There are so many problems with that statement. The notability needs to be asserted, and it needs to have sources.  Just because you say this person is notable doesn't mean anything.  Right now this article is just a chess problem with someone's name tacked on to it.--  Oni Ookami Alfador Talk 16:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete . The article does not provide notability, and being a chess problemist is not any more notable than being a chess player. The structure of the article is "subject is a chess problemist" followed by a problem he made [a fairy problem incidentally, making this essentially a chess variant problem, not a chess problem.] For a chess player, that would be like "X is a chess player" and then adding a game. And you could make an article like that on me ("Sjakkalle is a chess player" followed by the game on my userpage.) Article lacks sources to illustrate non-trivial coverage. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sorry but fairy chess problem is essentially a chess problem NOT a chess variant. And about your chess games, are they mentioned in any notably collection (like )?--AndrejJ (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Careful—I think some of Sjakkalle's games are in notable collections. That said, I think it's very possible that this person is a notable chess composer.  Unfortunately chess problems are not my thing, so I just don't know.  What the article needs is a good source or two attesting to the importance of this composer.  I think Onitiu died before FIDE did much with chess composition so we won't have FIDE composition titles or medals, but if Onitiu won any other prizes for composition that could also help. There's extensive literature on chess problems.  It should be possible to find something for a notable problem composer.  Quale (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC) — Oops, I was wrong.  The link you provided suggests that Onitiu was published in the FIDE Album III 1914-1944.  I consider that a suggestion of notability.  Quale (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, a ChessBase is a notable game collection, but if you can have a rating of 1249 and wind up there, then having games there does not make you notable. Anyway, the evidence uncovered by Quale has made me reconsider, and I'll stay neutral on this one, while pleading my ignorance for the problem aspects of chess. Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No notability established. In particular having some problems mentioned in a notable collection does not make you automatically notable, as having a chess game in the very notable MegaDatabase (from Chessbase) does not make you notable. SyG (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: IMO having ten problems in selection which consist 806 selected chess problems (FIDE 1914/1944-III contains fairy and retro problems together with chess studies; actually Onitiu contribute 10 out of 145 problems in group of fairy chess without selfmates and helpmates) is for chess composer good enough. For comparison: ten or more problems in this album also have the composers as: Vladimir Bron, Thomas R. Dawson, Charles Fox, Aleksandr Gerbstman, Nikolai Grigorjev, dr. Niels Høeg, Genrih Kasparjan, Leonid Kubbel, Artur Mandler, Herman Mattison, Wolfgang Pauly, Richard Reti, Henri Rinck and Aleksej Troicki. There is a problem with missing biographical facts (which is not accessible online) but I'm certain than Onitiu deserve his article.--AndrejJ (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please allow me to put my comparison with chess games further: having 10 games published in a Chess Informant would not be a sufficient proof of validity to me. I understand the FIDE albums contain more than 17000 problems (!!) so having 10 of them by an author does not seem like a lot to me. Of course, I am not basing all my judgment on "number of problems", but on this single and subjective aspect (FIDE albums) this composer does not seem notable to me. SyG (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As was told before: Onitiu died in 1948, so mentioning 17.000 problems is absolutely irrelevant.--AndrejJ (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The FIDE Album III containing some of Onitiu's work seems to have been published in 1975 —27 years after Onitiu's death in 1948. The whole bit about 17000 problems seems to me to be a rather unfair argument (I hope not deliberately, but Andrejj explained the numbers pretty clearly) since that covers 50 years of composition done when Onitiu was dead.  In fact only three FIDE albums cover the period up to 1945 and they total only about 2800 problems.  If you look at the publishing history of the FIDE Albums, for the years before 1945 FIDE albums contain only about 100 problems for each year.  After 1945 the albums include about 200–350 problems a year.  What this suggests to me is that it is helpful to have the assistance of someone with expertise in chess composition to determine the worth of this article.  I don't have that expertise. Quale (talk) 06:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK let me explain what I mean. If we assume the FIDE albums give a view on the full range and history of chess composition (which is already a sub-part of chess in general), we could consider that Valerian Onitiu represents 10/17000 = 0.06% of chess composition. Clearly this reasoning is very limited as the FIDE albums may have a bias towards present. On the other hand, reasoning like "he is the most notable romanian chess problemist born in April 1872 and dead in December 1948" may be seen as just the same unfairness, i.e. reasoning on a subset too limited. Going that far, we could say something like "he has 10 problems on the 12 problems set up in page 42 of the 3rd FIDE albums, so he is exceptionnally notable". To sum up it all, I tend to think that restricting the set to make it look more notable is not fully appropriate here. SyG (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Quale is correct that a chess expert is needed. I wanted to elaborate on reviewing chess players for my sister.  I gathered the information, their problems, their specialties, their games with other ranked opponents.  She made the decissions about whether to accept a match or not.  It was not always clear cut which players were the best known to me.  Sometimes, discussing chess with her and other players, they might not know a name, but would know a single problem--and they all, even if they had not heard of the problem, could recognize the importance of a particular problem just from the problem.  I never got to that level.  Once a name is attached to a spectacular problem in chess, the player himself becomes very notable, it seems.  From the FIDE it seems, imo, that he's notable if he has a single notable problem, which appears to be the case for Onitiu.  Romanian chess players may be written up in the Russian literature on chess, also.  I'm not sure if SyG is saying don't restrict the set of possible ways of being notable, or restricting Onitiu's set to make him appear more notable is the problem, but I think Quale has a good point with this article.  --Amaltheus (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep From what I found online, his problems are still very much actual and reproduced on many websites. I think that qualifies for The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field., considering his most active years were 1920-1930. I added two references, one is from the 2005 Encyclopædia Universalis France S.A., which is a product of the Brittanica encyclopediae. Obviously the article needs improvement. It is easy to find his chess problems (we even have one of his problems at Grasshopper!), much harder to find information on the person. Voorlandt (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Unless he has a single problem that has its own sources. His total FIDE album points are only 9.75, which means he's not even a FIDE Master Chess problem.  Are even all International Grandmasters considered noteworthy for Wikipedia, much less problemists who are not Masters?  It does not seem that without additional sources about his best known chess problem that Onitiu is notable within the definitions of notability on Wikipedia.  --Amaltheus (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Unless he has a single problem that has its own sources.--see the reference of the 2005 Encyclopædia Universalis. Voorlandt (talk) 08:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The titles were established in 1959 and he died in 1948. I don't think FIDE awards any titles posthumously, so I don't think that specific complaint is valid. Quale (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment His FIDE album points are only 9.75, true but Loyd or Dudeney both have zero points, even Dawson has only 23.92 points. FIDE albums became important after World War II - in 1960. was first album published.--AndrejJ (talk) 08:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is correct, that he's an earlier preblemist and FIDE titles came later. But the FIDE album is a major source to establish his notability, so the points should be looked at.  Standing alone, his points aren't that high.  What is needed, imo, is a respectable reference that gives usable material from the one problem.  A single spectacular chess problem can, imo, make notability.  It certainly can carry heavy weight in the world of chess.  I don't have the needed expertise, my sister is an outsider chess player, so just some familiarity.  Still, although FIDE albums show a seriously ranked best of the best of chess, there are many players with points and problems who aren't that notable.  --Amaltheus (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. When nominated the article did not make any claims of notability, and it still needs work.  My reasons to urge that it is kept: 1) I don't think many people with much interest in chess problems have expressed an opinion here, but the ones who have seem to think keep is appropriate.  Sometimes great affection for a subject can lead to a desire to keep marginal articles, but I think often some expertise is required to make the best judgment.  Unfortunately I have little knowledge of or interest in chess problems myself, so I don't have that expertise.  I have to rely on others and try to correctly weigh other factors.  We have many passionate advocates for video games on Wikipedia, but not very many chess problem enthusiasts it seems.  I don't think that is in proportion to the relative encyclopedic value of these topics.  2) The chess problem given as an example in the article is a collaboration with Petrović, Dawson & Fox, three other composers with articles.  Although notable collaborators is not sufficient proof of notability, it is evidence that suggests notability.  (It is of course possible that Dawson and perhaps the others merely acted in an editorial capacity, perhaps to repair a cook.)  3) Onitiu has an entry in Jeremy Gaige's Chess Personalia.  This is the standard English-language work on chess biographical details (birth and death dates and places).  While not every person with an entry in Gaige should have an article on Wikipedia, it is indicative that a person is notable in the world of chess.  It is not an indiscriminate collection of biographical data, but a careful selection.  Gaige describes the criteria he used for inclusion and for chess problemists says he relied heavily on Henri Weenink's The Chess Problem.  I think this is considered a standard work on the history of chess composition.  4) It seems that a number of Onitiu's compositions have been collected in FIDE Albums.  These collections are chosen to demonstrate the best work in chess problems.  It is important to keep in mind that FIDE Albums were not introduced until long after Onitiu was dead, and their coverage of problems in his time is far from complete.  This makes his selection more noteworthy.  5) Gaige says that there's info on Onitiu in what appears to be a Romanian-language chess encyclopedia or dictionary.  (I added it to Valerian Onitiu.)  If I had an English-language chess encyclopedia with an entry for Onitiu I would easily !vote strong keep.  And related to this, 6) I am concerned about systemic bias because of the possibility that the best sources of information on Onitiu are not in English.  A Romanian chess composer can be every bit as notable as a Russian or a Briton, even if it's harder to find English language sources. Quale (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is true that there are many sources in chess in languages besides English. Please find some and include them.  I don't think Wikipedia is the encyclopedia of the English-speaking world.  --Amaltheus (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of these supposed sources of notability don't mean much of anything if they aren't actually cited in the article (and they are not) and support a claim of notability within the article (which also doesn't seem to exist). Maybe then it would be different but there could still be some verifiability issues with the sources.--  Oni Ookami Alfador Talk 14:16, 15 January 2008 (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.