Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yang Kaiqi
: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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
=[[:Yang Kaiqi]]=
:{{la|Yang Kaiqi}} – (
:({{Find sources AFD|Yang Kaiqi}})
Deproded. Not a notable chess player (not a GMs nor a national champions; not all IMs are notable); the tournament he won is not particularly renowned. There are no secondary sources for this victory. Sophia91 (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - The chess-results.com site looks perfectly adequate for sourcing the result of the Korean tournament. His achievement in winning this tournament is not trivial, he finished ahead of 4 GM's and beat GM Jaan Ehlvest. This IM may meet the criteria for notabiliy. Current issues with dead links in the article (it was originally written several years ago) are probably fixable. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC) I also think we need to be aware of possible systemic bias given that many weaker western players have wikipedia articles. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. There is (unfortunately) no specific guideline for the notability of chess players, so the nominator's assertion that "not all IMs are notable" is a matter of opinion. International Master, although not as strong as a Grandmaster, still indicates a very high level of playing strength - the top 0.25% of all tournament chess players. There are secondary sources in the article, which indicate that he has won at least two notable tournaments.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep The Korea Open and Philadelphia Congress wins are notable and (now) independently sourced. There are chess bios like Jack Puccini and Erik Kislik that are more serious candidates for deletion. Cobblet (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
{{clear}}
: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.