Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mathematicians who studied chess

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 delete. Sandstein 17:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of mathematicians who studied chess

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable intersection, entirely unsourced. An unsourced assertion is made that "naturally" chess appeals to mathematicians. Some of the people listed are noted mathematicians who happened to play a bit of chess, others are noted chess players who happened to study mathematics at university. A similar list could probably be made of economists, lawyers, psychologists etc. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. There are no sources present to give any indication of why this particular intersection is notable at all. It is just a list of people who happened to have had interest in two random, unconnected fields to varying degrees. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:LISTN. For example, see BBC and New York Times. Andrew D. (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even allowing for this the article needs a lot of work to bring it up to wikipedia standard, and I don't mean just adding a few names. There is simply no comparison between Anthony Santasiere, a minor chess master who taught high school mathematics for his day job, and Abraham de Moivre, the great 18th century mathematician who may or may not have played a bit of chess in his spare time (no source is given of course). To me the article doesn't look worth saving. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid problems of this type, I'd like to see this restricted to people who made notable contributions to both chess and mathematics. This is definitely a non-empty set — it includes for instance Elkies and Smullyan — but is it large enough for an actual list? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not many people would meet wikipedia's notability criteria in both chess and any other field. Elkies wouldn't qualify for an article on the basis of his chess achievements - he's one of about 1000 National Masters in the US, and the World Chess Solving Championship doesn't get a lot of attention from chess news media, let alone from mainstream media. Off hand, I can think of very few people who meet wikipedia's notability criteria for both chess and one other field, and none of them are mathematicians - there's Kenneth Rogoff (economist), Mark Taimanov (pianist), Miguel Farré (also a pianist) and Stuart Milner-Barry (codebreaker). MaxBrowne (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re Elkies, NM is not enough for chess notability of course but I was actually referring to his contributions to chess problems and his problem solving championship. And for Smullyan, his chess notability comes from his popularization of retrograde analysis through writing two books on the subject. I don't think we should require that the subject be independently notable in both categories, but they should have some sort of claim of significance beyond studying mathematics at school or playing chess at an amateur level. Another possibility is Kenneth W. Regan. We don't have an article on him but he has made contributions to both computational complexity and chess (specifically, analysis of rating systems and of computerized cheating, not so much for his over-the-board play, although he is an IM). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to mention Primary decomposition and Emanuel Lasker. :) 189.63.172.98 (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, that's the other one I was trying to remember. So that's three people with significant contributions to both worlds. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands, although I would be willing to change my mind if the entries were cited and some actual, referenced justification was given as to why this particular intersection is interesting. Double sharp (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is my feeling too. I can be brought around but only if the article is significantly improved. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As noted by Andrew Davidson mathematicians who studied or played chess is a topic that has received attention. David Spanier wrote in Total Chess that music, mathematics and chess are linked by their propensity to produce prodigies, and the pursuits have other connections too. Admittedly the article is not the best right now, but the current state is not so poor as to demand immediate removal and it won't ever improve if it is deleted. List of amateur chess players is an example of what the list could become if it were trimmed a bit, sourced and expanded to describe the contributions to math and chess. Quale (talk) 04:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 14:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure about the list (leaning a very weak keep), but I wonder if it makes sense to think instead about an article Chess and mathematics which would cover a broader intersection of the subjects. We have, for example, Go and mathematics. There's also Mathematical chess problem, recreational mathematics, and the Chess'n Math Association... Not something that has to be decided at this AfD, but if such an article existed, it would make for a very sensible merge target (for any sourced content). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of citations, no obvious standard for inclusion on either criterion (what's the threshold to be declared a "mathematician"? What's the threshold for "studied chess"?), no way to judge completeness or timeliness. I agree Chess and mathematics would be an interesting and valuable article, as it's clearly a significant crossover; this list, though, is no more verifiable or useful than, say, List of mathematicians who wore braces. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 15:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Before I !vote is it me or is there a WP:SYNTH going on with this article...? There are obvious source issues but just wondering if it's just me? - Pmedema (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never sure what these lists are meant to achieve. "Studied" is a very flexible term and mathematics come in many forms, pure and applied. There's an obvious link between the disciplines, but equally we could have a list of musicians; stringing together notes to form a tune is akin to combining chess moves to create tactics. Ed Lasker has written about these connections, but here we have no discussion and a consequent lack of usefulness. Brittle heaven (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.