Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flying 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 and redirect to List of chess variants. However, I'll hold off on actually deleting the page for a couple of days to allow for a merge. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flying chess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Chess variant with no notable coverage outside of specialist encylopedias (one online, one book). Does not pass the WP:GNG for inclusion in Wikipedia (a general encylopedia). See outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troy (chess variant), suggest same remedy, redirect to List of chess variants. LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Wikipedia is not a general encyclopedia, at least according to the five pillars. Meanwhile I see no reason why two reliable sources is not enough for an article. Particularly where both are in-depth and one is an encyclopedia. There are sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG. That other discussion is not comparable because that was an instance of an article cited to a single source, which obviously fails WP:GNG. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three-check chess was redirected to List of chess variants despite having a wider base of sources. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LukeSurl: Since that article was deleted several users have expressed views that it should not have been deleted. Certainly I would have voted keep had I been involved in that debate. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was a keep in that discussion, though for me 3check got notability from its play at Chess.com and Lichess, which aren't applicable here. I'm trying to work out where the line falls regarding what makes a chess variant notable. A lot of chess variant articles were created on the assumption that a mention in Pritchard's The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants automatically makes it notable. On examination (and tested in those two AfDs), that precedent isn't really viable for an article-each basis - there are literally thousands of variants which get a paragraph in that book.

The Chess Variant Pages is basically the other wide-ranging source with thousands of entries. Users can make submissions [1] & [2]. These submissions are reviewed, but I can't see much evidence that there's any filtering for notability, indeed it looks like the site encourages people to submit newly created variants before they've had much, if any, play.

I'm hoping as a community we can work out some standards regarding chess variants, and having some test-cases regarding Pritchard's encylopedia and The Chess Variant Pages would be helpful towards this. For me, The Chess Variant Pages is effectively a wiki on a specialist topic, and inclusion there is not a good measure of notability. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like my understanding of what Wikipedia is supports keeping most articles like this. You have explained your points well and I don't disagree with your analysis of the sources and how they are put together. The main thoughts I have is that I feel Wikipedia should in most situations cover specialist topics when there are reliable sources to meet the core content policies. I don't see a clear mandate to curate topics by their relevance except for topics prone to spam and promotionalism. If we are looking at relevance, it is true that chess variants are generally niche topics with a relatively low proportion of players and literature compared to the traditional game. I will just say that although I can see the point you are making I am still voting to keep the article. I don't think I have a clear preference towards the unknown number of articles chiefly cited to Pritchard's works, I suppose my preference would be chiefly to keep. The policy is clear that a second source is required at the minimum so any cited only to Pritchard's should be deleted, likewise any article cited only to The Chess Variant Pages should be deleted. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Redirect - unless someone can show some other sources beyond Pritchard, this looks to fail WP:GNG. Chess Variant Pages may serve to verify certain uncontroversial facts here and there, but fails as a reliable source that would add to notability. Anybody can add their own game. It is WP:UGC with apparently minimal editorial oversight, making it about as reliable as imdb. Regardless of whether or not it could be used to verify an uncontroversial fact, something that will publish information about any game is not something to be used for notability. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I've clarified "and redirect" aabove. Delete before redirect given the promotional nature of the text. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - As the article says, this variant "was invented by Dr David Eltis in 1984. Eltis is also a noted historian of the Military Revolution" (at Eton). As it happens, among this article creator's few other edits are contributions to military history and Eton, as well as the AfD of an article on Eltis himself (which had to be repeatedly deleted). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Reading the AfD was eye-opening. I noticed that the invention of Flying Chess was used as an argument that David Eltis was notable. But the article about him was deleted in spite of, or perhaps partly because of, the three "keep" votes by shadowy accounts who had not contributed to Wikipedia until that day. "Spam and promotionalism", but Flying Chess is still with us after 12 years. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Exactly one GBook hit other an Arthurian story and a lot of accidental juxtapositions. Mangoe (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Almost every section of this article has no sources. I also agree with Rhododendrites on the fact that it's inventer isn't notible himself. I'm not saying that Croatia can't put this on [List of chess variants]], though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JACKonWIKIS (talk • contribs) 14:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• possible keep Merge and Redirect to List of chess variants (as done with Troy (chess variant)) -- I spent about an hour looking through the potential WP:RS and this is very much on the boarder-line. I'll post what I found in a minute and see if you all think it is enough. I just put notices on the talk page of List of chess variants that has 148 watchers and chess that has over 1,000 watchers.

Please note the author of this AfD has a discussion going at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess#Regarding the notability of chess variants.

I'll take a look at that and see how it compares to what I found. It might be better to discuss the WP:RS requirements for all chess variants there, come up with a plan general guidelines, rather than have to go through this process for each one. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked most of this over. I found most of the same WP:RS as described above and have similar feelings. [I did also find some games for sale called "Flying Chess" which I seriously doubt have anything to do with this particular variation. [3][4]]

I agree with LukeSurl that notability--certainly of this variation--hinges on whether The Chess Variant Pages demonstrate notability. Although there is also this article (Volume 3, Issue 21; Autumn 1996) in the periodical Chess Variants, because Pritchard is the author, editor president of the club, and 'Games Consultant', that probably won't help establish notability for the variation. If it was another author and editor or he had less power over the periodical, I think it would.

As for Rhododendrites' comments about The Chess Variant Pages, if indeed anyone can add any variation, that would be a problem if there is no oversight of such additions by chess or chess variant experts. However, Hans L. Bodlaender's article was created in 1996. If he just posted it on a website he controlled, then definitely it is the problem of self-published. But the fact that it is still there 20 years later with new stewards of the site might lend credibility to it. Part of the question also relies on how much an expert Mr. Bodlaender was on chess and chess variations when it was written, and if that is a factor on why it was kept and how they decide what to keep. In addition, on that site there is The concise guide to chess variants complied by David Howe in 2011, which includes Flying Chess. Also are any of these editors masters or grandmasters? Without more knowledge of the editors of the site and their expertise and their editorial control, I'm very much on the fence. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC) [revised 13:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC), 17:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)][reply]

might lend credibility to it - Not sure about this. We don't grant an imdb page more credibility if the material has been there for 20 years, for example. It's still user-generated content -- it's just old user-generated content. :) Regarding The concise guide to chess variants, it's a compilation that includes Pritchard, so is basically another version of Pritchard. If Flying Chess was in one of the other sources it drew from, we should cite that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is a game called Battle Flying Chess available on the Microsoft Store, but I think it's something different. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is an extremely minor "invented" chess version that sounds interesting, but doesn't meet the requirements for notability. As noted at the Chess Variant source, it was "mentioned" in niche periodical newsletter Variant Chess in 1996, and "has been played at some universities and schools in Europe." A single mention 22 years ago in a defunct publication put out by the British Chess Variant Society doesn't make it notable. --Leflyman^Talk 15:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of chess variants per nom. Ifnord (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's substantial copyvios (like whole paragraphs) from https://www.chessvariants.com/3d.dir/flying.html. A redirect to List of chess variants probably makes sense, but delete the history first, to fix the copyvio problem. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with List of chess variants per User:Ifnord. Redditaddict69 22:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no fundamental objection to a merge, but if you do that, make sure you vet any merged text to make sure you're not propagating a copyvio, and then revdel the history to clean that of copyvio as well. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of chess variants. On its own, not enough coverage for an article. There's a similar article Aeroplane Chess that shows up when Googling flying chess, but that one at least has retailers selling it, and does not seem to be a close variant of chess. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroplane Chess is definitely something different than the more obscure Flying chess. I did a pretty comprehensive search on "flying chess" above. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2018 (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.