I like watching his commentary on tiktok and I googled his name to see more about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:4800:940F:9E01:C386:AB53:8956:5F5C (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Sagar Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to find any independent coverage, as almost all of the sources are either interviews or passing mentions in unreliable or unbylined sources. Not enough to meet WP:GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- As an aside, it's completely absurd to think this person might not be notable. They founded the most successful chess journalism / media company ever, and are one of the most well-known media figures in chess. The nominator lacks the WP:COMPETENCE to be familiar with the subject and did not put adequate effort to look for sources. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources from chessbase.in are WP:SPS, and thesportzplanet.com, perlenvombodensee.de, and fountainink.in are more like blogs with little or no editorial oversight. To clarify, ChessBase has existed since 1986 and the Indian version was only co-founded by him. Claiming that “they founded the most successful chess journalism/media company ever, and are one of the most well-known media figures in chess” reflects your bias and is not policy based. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Complete nonsense. Media-wise, the Indian version of ChessBase is way more important than the German version. How do you not know that? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Perlen vom Bodensee is not just a blog, [8], it is a very reliable source, also trusted by de-wp, for what it's worth. - Squasher (talk) 13:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please double check? Because from what I see, the only author who consistently writes on Perlen vom Bodensee is Conrad Schormann, who is also the founder. Six articles were written by Stefan Löffler and a few by Roland Neumeier. The translated DE wiki article states that "The site's editor is Conrad Schormann, who is supported by a team of 18 authors.", which I believe is misleading based on what I’ve seen so far and the fact that the article has very few edits also doesn’t help its reliability. In any case, having a page on DE wiki doesn’t automatically make the source reliable, especially since the standards on EN wiki are significantly higher, which I believe you already know. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing to add or to check. I saw the article this afternoon by chance and also the the AfD, with a comment I did not completely agree and just wanted to leave a note that might help. The source is viewed as reliable in de-wp by the chess portal, if you do not agree, that is fine for me. Sagar Shah is at least in my eyes a relevant topic for someone like me, who follows chess purely from an interested viewer point of view. He is very well known in the chess eco system, in de-wp he is notable already just by having reached the IM title. If he doesn't meet the criteria here, because no sources can be found, that are seen as sufficient, so be it. - Squasher (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
-
- ChessBase India is not an WP:SPS. He is not the one writing the articles that are about him. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll also note that ChessBase India is probably the most reliable WP:RS among chess publications. If you don't want to count it for the subject of this article because he's the one who created it, there's some lacking WP:COMMONSENSE going on here. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another note, the nominator does not understand what ChessBase or ChessBase India are. These sites exist to sell chess products (e.g. software, under the name ChessBase), hence why they have similar names. They also both have a media/journalism component, but the two media/journalism components are completely separate from each other. ChessBase's media/journalism component is not considered particularly important or successful, while ChessBase India's media/journalism component has been so successful that a lot of people believe the media/journalism component has overtaken the chess products component in terms of the company's image. I can provide sources to back this up, but this is just common knowledge if you are familiar with chess. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Although you are correct that Chessbase India is not a WP:SPS, as he is its founder, I don't see how it can be considered independent of the subject. Also the interview with him is primary - see WP:IV. Interviews are not fine - they are primary sources. But despite that, the Perlom vom Bodensee article looks good - SIGCOV in an independent reliable and secondary source. We need multiple, of course. There are mentions in a few other places, but I haven't yet found more. All the same, I think based on coverage that does not rise to significance or where independence is questionable, I still think we could support a presumption that more exists. That being said, there is a caution: the text of the Perlom vom Bodensee article has Werbung (advertising) just before the body text. If the whole article is paid advertising, then it is not independent. In that case I would say this is a clear case for deletion. Only if we can verify the independence of that article would I say it's enough to support a weak keep. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:IV says some kinds of interviews are fine. I agree with you that the video interviews are primary, but the written interviews vary. This one and this one are both definitely acceptable in that regard. For Perlom vom Bodensee, it's not a paid article, if that's what you mean. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- If ChessBase India's media/journalism work is successful, then it deserves its own standalone article. By WP:SPS, what I was trying to point out is that he owns the Indian site, so anything it publishes about him can effectively be considered as self-published, even if it carries an author byline. I realize now that I phrased that poorly before but my main point is that these sources are not independent.
- Likewise, the Chess.com Creator of the Month feature would be considered routine coverage if it were about any other YouTuber/streamer. From what I understand of the standards here, the bar for notability among YouTubers and content creators is quite high and a single interview or profile like this wouldn’t be enough to establish it.
- Perlom vom Bodensee cannot be verified to have any kind of editorial oversight, as it is the founder publishing the majority of the articles and this is once again an interview. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- For most of the Creator of the Month articles, the issue would be it's not independent, as almost all of the featured creators are affiliated with Chess.com. But that's not the case with the subject of this article. He is one of the only creators featured who isn't affiliated with them. So it's not WP:ROUTINE. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Likewise, it's ridiculous to frame the subject as just a content creator when he is primarily known for creating an entire media platform. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Lean keep - Haven't investigated in depth but I've certainly heard the name before, he's a strong player (just below GM level) and I'm familiar with his writing on chessbase. The combination of strong player and established chess journalist should be enough to get him over the line. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Please make your rationale P&G based. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- You're WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. Back off a little. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe. WP:IKNOWIT arguments don’t really help much either I guess. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]