Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest chess Tournament Performance Ratings

:{{la|List of highest chess Tournament Performance Ratings}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_highest_chess_Tournament_Performance_Ratings Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|List of highest chess Tournament Performance Ratings}})

I believe that the term "Tournament Performance Rating" and the methodology were invented by the original editor, thus violating wp:OR and/or wp:synth. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 01:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• redirect to List of world records in chess. The highest PR (Performance Rating) itself is worthy of inclusion in List of world records in chess, though even for that (Fabiano Caruana's performance last year), I'm having trouble finding a WP:RS. (The Sinquefield Cup article claims it is the highest PR in history and gives [http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2014/09/sinquefield_cup_one_of_the_most_amazing_feats_in_chess_history_just_happened.single.html this Slate article] as its source, but the Slate article in turn relies on [http://twitter.com/top40chess/status/508373748672892928 an unreferenced tweet] as its source). Since it's relatively difficult to establish the top PR of all time, compiling a "list of the top X PRs" is a minefield of WP:OR, and it's something that no WP:RS seems to be interested in. Since the WP:RS aren't interested, we shouldn't be either. Adpete (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

:: Comment The terminology can be fixed by removing the word "Tournament", because "Performance Rating" is a widely used chess term. But there are bigger WP:OR and lack-of-WP:RS issues, as I argue above. Adpete (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

::Comment I prefer deleting to redirecting. The title of the page is not intuitive anyway. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - unless (a) the community agrees that taking measures along the lines suggested by {{u|Adpete}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_highest_chess_Tournament_Performance_Ratings&type=revision&diff=661021660&oldid=660994752 here] would be sufficient to save the article and (b) someone is actually willing to do that work. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete – clear example of OR. I don't know how the author arrived at a TPR for Fischer in 1963 even with his original method of computing TPRs for perfect scores, since FIDE ratings didn't exist yet. Cobblet (talk) 08:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

::: Ratings can be calculated retroactively. Also, the USCF was using ratings in 1963, but they weren't quite the same as FIDE's. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - The OR problem could be solved as it is common practice for tournaments to tell players their performance rating (I do not know how the calculation is done but FIDE certainly has guidelines). However I do not quite see the claim to notability of such a list when none of those performances would get more than routine coverage in the chess press, and I suspect it is "best performances in chess ever" masquerading as a legit article. No objection to a redirect. Tigraan (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete for the reasons given by {{u|Cobblet}}. Krakatoa (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2015 (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.