Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Gambit

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. Davewild (talk) 08:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Gambit

Australian Gambit (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This stub lists an uncommon chess opening that does not require listing. Tavix (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Neutral not clear to me this is any less notable than any of the many other chess opening/defense pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJL (talk • contribs) 03:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Most of the other articles we have on openings are well-covered in literature. Several chess openings have lots of books written about them. This article is not one of them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• That's what I didn't know. It sounds from the comments further down as though this is at the least nn. JJL 15:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Just curious here, but why did the nom only nominate this one, since there are many others? - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Some chess openings can be considered notable if they're fairly common (jiaco piano) or if its an open commonly played by a grandmaster like Fischer or Kasparov. -RiverHockey 19:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I only put this one up for deletion because this is the only one I found at this moment. When I find others, I'll put them on the chopping block as well. Tavix 23:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, With all do respect a lot of chess openings are much more notable than say Chess960. -RiverHockey 20:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

* Comment There are a lot of notable chess openings, see List of chess openings. But this one is not notable. Bubba73 (talk), 20:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

*Comment Thanks, I'm aware. -RiverHockey 14:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: I don't see how this is notable. Obviously the game itself is, but I guess this is supposed to be "inherent notability"? - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I am uncertain how to vote, because this seems to be opening a large and complex issue. If this is deleted, then much of the content on List of chess openings named after places looks like it's in trouble, along with perhaps List of chess openings. Wikipedia is not a strategy guide, but I think this content is better transwikied to a more suitable place. Although, it looks like a lot of this content is already duplicated by the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings on their own site.

• Comment Although I see your point, a lot of these are actually pretty factual and merit their own article. This opening is fairly uncommon and is probably copied from an encyclopedia or something. Tavix 23:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

--NickPenguin_(contribs) 05:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete We in the Chess Project have already dealt with a large number of similar articles, and this one is too small to merit its own article. Bubba73 (talk), 05:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Bubba73. I think the Chess Wikiproject knows what they are doing.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is one of a series of minor sub-variations which was probably created by mistake, and with weak Geocities sourcing which does nothing beyond defining the moves. Entering the moves in ChessBase database, a collection of 4.2 million games [1], and performing a search, reveals just one hit. (Which is not surprising since the move 5.h4 looks like a horrible blunder which just drops the knight on f3.)Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Bubba73 -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Bubba73. Even a member of the Chess Project and an avid chessplayer like me finds this article ridiculously non-notable. Of course this is a case-by-case assessment: if some notable chess openings were "AFDed" I would argue to keep them. But this article is definitely not one of them, by any criteria. SyG 18:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into King's Gambit. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 11:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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.