This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess articles
@Usedtobecool and Sportsfan77777: I'm not convinced this subject really meets WP:GNG - there doesn't look to be a lot of WP:SIGCOV for him. Other than the Danish article, [1], everything else looks like routine coverage to me... Just wondering your take? Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the edit summary, becoming the youngest African-American player ever to reach National Master (breaking a 25-year-old record) is a big deal [2], not routine coverage. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Besides that and the Danish article, I believe he is also the No. 1 ranked Black chess player in the whole world now among active players, which isn't covered in any of the sources currently in the article. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, Amakuru. What I've seen has failed to impress. National Master is one of those nothing titles in chess that exist so the governing bodies can collect fees for them. And he isn't even the youngest to it, just the youngest African American, which still would be something if no African American had done anything better in chess. But we have Maurice Ashley, who achieved the title of Grandmaster in 1999, the highest title there is, and he's just the one I know of. Sportsfan adds the qualifier "active" to make his claims plausible but he's still guessing and shares no sources to back it up. I read the Danish article and they're not profiling someone because they think he's notable, they're just interested. And there's a lot of anticipatory fawning. If he does this, if he does that, it would really be something, they say. But I don't see that he actually managed to do those things. So, by the very standards set by that article, he's not yet made it. I suspect there's some interest in him currently among chess followers because he's started doing chess commentary on occasion. But as far as notability, as we define it, is concerned, I don't see SNG-worthy achievements, nor do I see GNG-worthy sources. One final point I would like to make is that finding out niche records he's broken and assigning them value is a straightforward NOR violation. We need the sources to say that he's broken or maintains those records and we need them to say why that's significant. If chess publications don't care who the youngest African American to National Master was or who the current highest rated Black player is, either they're right and those kinds of achievements are not significant, or maybe they're wrong but Wikipedia can not RGW anyway. Regards! Usedtobecool☎️ 18:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources alone are good enough to establish notability. I'm just telling you, in case there's any doubt, the subject is more notable than the sources suggest. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources alone don't appear to be enough at all though, as I see it. There is seemingly one source, the Danish one, and as usedtobecool says, that was focused on an imminent rise to GM level that hasn't happened. — Amakuru (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you not accept the breaking the National Master record source as WP:SIGCOV? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm happy to see what Usedtobecool thinks, I want to clarify this question was actually directed more towards Amakuru. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are covering a child reaching a nothing milestone. Younger kids have become grandmasters. You can find some reason to find a kid interesting but unless the potential pans out, their coverage as a child amounts to nothing. "Outstanding student", "prodigy", "next Bobby Fischer"... but nothing panned out. Compare to Abhimanyu Mishra who went to actual notable achievements. Compare also to Tanitoluwa Adewumi who has not done anything notable either but there is sustained interest and they're apparently publishing books and making movies already. Korley fails on both fronts. He didn't go on to real achievements as was anticipated. And the interest was not so broad or so sustained. Coming back to the point, I take guidance from WP:YOUNGATH. Young people who go on to achieve something in sports and such regularly find media interest but it is not much more than human interest. It may be a big deal to the kid but it is rarely actually notable. As such the coverage needs to be wholly independent, significant, on a national or supranational level and most relevant here, it has to be sustained over a long period of time. Tani had global interest and has continued to be tracked over a long time, Korley did not and has not. Usedtobecool☎️ 07:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some confusion here. I never said the subject is notable for some potential future accomplishment (e.g. "prodigy", "next Bobby Fischer"). I said he is notable for what he has already accomplished (as covered by the Danish article and the NM record article). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:YOUNGATH doesn't apply. It's for athletes competing at youth level. "National Master" (NM) and "International Master" (IM) are adult-level accomplishments. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
National master is nothing. Even international master is not notable by virtue of it alone. So, yeah, adult level accomplishments that amount to non-notable. The only reason those pieces exist is because they are treating the subject like a young sportsperson of some interest and potential. I am not really interested in technicalities. That guidance is not specific to YOUNGATH, it's one of the foundational principles of notability on Wikipedia. Sustained coverage is absolutely essential. You find it in NOTNEWS, you find it in BIO1E, you find it in ROUTINE, it's everywhere. The "sources" part of GNG is it, though it used to be more detailed and explicit. Usedtobecool☎️ 08:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying "sustained over a long period of time is essential", but it's not. It's not a requirement for WP:GNG at all. You only need a few sources. Even one source could be good enough if it's a really good source. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, the two main sources I refer to are 11 years apart. If that's not a long period of time, I really don't know what you want. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at it this way. I win the 5km race in my city when I'm in 8th grade, and I'm from a Dalit caste. So, a newspaper is very interested in writing about me. Not only am I a young person who beat all the adults, I came from a Dalit background to do it. Next year, I accept the offer to represent a more famous school in a bigger city, and I get another newspaper based on that city to write about me. But for all the details they have on me, and for all the speculation they can make about how I may win an olympic medal for my country, I disappear from the news entirely because all I did was beat some amateurs that one time, that's all. Yes, I do have two pieces from when I beat adults as a child but that hardly makes me notable when that's the extent of my newsworthy activities. That that 5km race had a very official sounding name, and gold-plated medal to go with it does not change the fact that it was not a very important race as far as races go. If an adult had won that race instead of me, he would have got zero news articles on him. I got two precisely because I was a child. So, was I a young athlete or not? Either way, it was a nothing race from a long time ago. So, should I have a Wikipedia article because there are these two news articles from my childhood even though I am still running but have not made the news again because though I am winning bigger races with improved time, I am not even close to professional level? My answer is a firm no. Usedtobecool☎️ 09:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
