Anna Burtasova: Sources of dubious quality.  Only one other source could be found, and it alone could not be enough to build an article upon.  aaronneallucas ( talk ) 04:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women .  aaronneallucas ( talk ) 04:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Russia and Canada .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment " Sources of dubious quality "?  They are all from FIDE, the ultimate reliable source for chess.  Pam D 22:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not dubious in the sense that they are unreliable, but they just do not establish notability.  They are largely collections of statistics, and not articles about the person.  None of the FIDE sources show significant coverage, which, as stated for the notability of sportspeople: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject."  This does not meet that, and I cannot find any evidence of significant coverage of this person.  aaronneallucas ( talk ) 23:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No WP:SIGCOV is present here or elsewhere for this subject to meet the GNG.  The sources are either primary, unreliable, or in the case of the NYT is a brief mention.  Let'srun ( talk ) 18:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, I think it was bad form to nominate this article for an AFD discussion less than an hour after the article was created.  That's not enough time to create an article that could withstand scrutiny at an AFD.  I'd also like to see some assessment of newly added content since its nomination.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No SIGCOV.  Passing mentions such as those in the NYT and The Globe and Mail do not contribute to notability, nor do non-independent primary sources like FIDE.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 22:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Burtasova does hold the title of Woman grandmaster , perhaps there is someone move familiar with WP:NCHESS who can comment on notability requirements for chess players beyond WP:GNG .  I realize this is not a delete/keep statement, but just a thought.  DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 12:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Subject meets WP:NCHESS criteria #1 and #6.  Respectively, Burtasova is a chess grandmaster , and has  contributed to the development of chess in Canada.  [1] - The Gnome ( talk ) 15:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note that Woman Grandmaster is a lesser title than Grandmaster .  The requirements are slightly tougher than those for FIDE Master and slightly easier than those for International Master .  Also, the WP:NCHESS criteria are strictly unofficial.  MaxBrowne2 ( talk ) 11:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Your argument is tantamount to claiming that the title of a champion for women's title is a lesser title than for men's tennis.  (Yes, I'm intentionally alluding to the ridiculous episode involving poor John McEnroe .)  Wikipedia does not consider the title of WGM in women to be any less worthy than the same title in me.  Having separate tournaments and championships for men and women (not a universal separation, by the way ) does not mean one is "lesser" (sic) than the other.  - The Gnome ( talk ) 20:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry but the WGM title *is* inferior to the GM title.  It is far easier to get than the GM title, easier even than the IM title.  I don't know by what authority you proclaim what "Wikipedia" does or does not "consider", but the claim that the titles are equivalent is just plain incorrect.  Women are entitled to enter open tournaments, compete against men, obtain "men's" titles and compete in the "men's section" at chess Olympiads, and play in "men's" championships.  Women who are strong enough (i.e. most of the world's top 20 woman players) hold the full GM title.  MaxBrowne2 ( talk ) 22:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You obviously do not understand what I'm saying, MaxBrowne2 .  I am not saying that the ELO arithmetic average of Women GM is equal to Men GM.  No, it's not even close.  There's about a hundred ELO points difference on average.  What I am saying is that Wikipedia does not assign any difference between men and women grandmasters as far as notability is concerned!  And if you have a different opinion, please point out the pertinent guideline to set me straight.  Which is why I'm telling you that your claim ("Woman Grandmaster is a lesser title than Grandmaster") makes no sense in  this context.  This is not a chess discussion; this is a discussion  about deleting or not an article.  - The Gnome ( talk ) 09:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ELO is a rock band, not a rating system.  I do understand what you're saying, and I disagree completely.  There is no such title as "Men GM", only GM, which is open to all players who meet the standard, including 41 women to date.  There is no "men" anything in chess, men don't have segregated tournaments or titles.  GMs are pretty much always notable.  IMs don't always make the cut, and neither do WGMs.  Often, but not always.  WGMs are not Grandmasters, only the 41 women who have actually gained the GM title are.  And again what qualifies you to make proclamations on behalf of "Wikipedia", and what "Wikipedia" does or does not "consider" or "assign a difference" to?  MaxBrowne2 ( talk ) 10:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you do not understand the ELO rating system in chess, I, in turn, cannot understand how you offer opinions about elementary issues of the game such as what kind of title is a grandmaster.  But, perhaps, or hopefully, you're joking ha ha.  In any case, Wikipedia does not place WGMs lower in any way, shape, or form lower than GMs.  You invoke WP:NCHESS without understanding it!  I already challenged you and I repeat the challenge: Find me in WPedia a rule, a policy, or a guideline that prohibits using the title of Women GM as evidence of notability.  Simple task.  Otherwise, you're making stuff up.  - The Gnome ( talk ) 14:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is clear that you understand nothing of which you write.  Concerning WP:CHESS : Even a cursory examination of this thread will show that *you* invoked WP:NCHESS , not me. I was around when we drafted that guide and had some hand in it It was never intended to be invoked as policy, or even a guideline, only as a rough guide to whether or not a player might be considered notable.  It is not a good link to use in a deletion discussion.  In the context "Grandmaster" clearly refers to the GM title, not the WGM title, and it is absurd to insist otherwise.  And for Christ's sake stop professing to speak on behalf of "Wikipedia" and making pompous pronouncements on what "Wikipedia" thinks about any topic.  "Wikipedia" is not a sentient being and has no opinions on anything.  What Wikipedia does have are policies and guidelines that have been established by consensus.  There is clearly no policy or guideline that says that no distinction should be made between the GM and WGM titles when assessing notability, since one is clearly a superior title to the other.  I am going to disengage here on a "never argue with an idiot" basis.  I seriously question your competence to edit chess articles or participate in chess-related deletion discussions.  I did not start this unpleasantness, I was just offering clarification that the "Grandmaster" in criterion 1 of WP:NCHESS does not refer to WGMs, but you chose to respond with an aggressive WP:BATTLEGROUND approach, which you then doubled down on with WP:IDHT obtuseness.  If you don't understand by now that criterion 1 of WP:NCHESS does not include WGMs then you never will.  After all you don't even know the difference between a Hungarian surname and a seventies British rock band , yet you presume to make pronouncements on behalf of "Wikipedia"!  MaxBrowne2 ( talk ) 19:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Any thoughts on the comments above?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Toadette Edit!  16:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep : Also have this article [6] about this person.  I think we have just enough to squeak past notability.  This interview on CBC just a few days ago [7] , while not about her confirms basic details, and this other story about her hired by a Toronto club [8] .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per Oaktree's references.  That's two different articles in the nation's biggest national paper - plus the local foreign one in a New York city paper.  Nfitz ( talk ) 16:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : on the basis of WP:NCHESS . -- Ipigott ( talk ) 11:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . As Nfitz notes, the sources Oaktree b found, from independent periodicals, provide the coverage in independent reliable sources that WP:GNG guides us to find. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits ) 08:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Nothing to do with WP:NCHESS which holds no status on Wikipedia, or her title (which is *not* equivalent to a full Grandmaster title), but because there are sufficient sources to establish notability. Further sources can be found in the Russian and German Wikipedia pages and could be incorporated into the article. For example the information that she graduated with a law degree from Vladimir University. MaxBrowne2 ( talk ) 23:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We have three local sources and one brief mention. That doesn't add up to WP:BIO . The title of grandmaster (putting aside the separate WGM title) may have been an indicator of notability years ago when there were only a handful issued each year, but there are thousands now . NCHESS would never find consensus to be promoted to an actual notability guideline in part for that reason. Stopping short of !voting delete because it sure seems like the only chess player AfDs I see are of women players -- we could use a notability audit of our articles on the men, too.  — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As I mentioned the Russian and German wikipedias can link us to other sources, such as Virtual Vladimir , Ruschess , Wissen in Wedding and the German Chess Federation .  That's more than enough sources to construct an article.  MaxBrowne2 ( talk ) 03:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The value of the Chess Grandmaster title has been inflated many decades ago and not in recent times.  I distinctly remember reading about this issue many decades ago.  Tournaments with GMs participating are more appealing.  In any case, if you, Rhododendrites , or others, believe changes are in order to WP:NCHESS , then I'm sure you're aware that AfD discussions are not the place for that.  Take care.  - The Gnome ( talk ) 14:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] agreed.  Nchess is irrelevant as far as afd is concerned.  If you believe it should be turned into a notability guideline that can serve as the basis for afd arguments, afd is not the place for that either.  — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ Rosner, Cecil (26 November 2022).  "Toronto chess club hires resident female grandmaster to attract more women to the game" .  Toronto Globe and Mail .  Retrieved 23 April 2024 .  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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus