Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chessckers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Some serious sockpuppetry going around... Sr13 02:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chessckers

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
Chessckers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested prod. No references for this game at all on Yahoo or Google. Blueboy96 21:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a real argument. See also:WP:ILIKEIT. Cool Bluetalk to me 15:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Not a real argument. See also:WP:NOHARM, WP:ILIKEIT. Cool Bluetalk to me 15:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Not a real argument. See also:WP:NOHARM, WP:ILIKEIT. Cool Bluetalk to me 15:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Not a real argument. See also:WP:ILIKEIT. Cool Bluetalk to me 15:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Very much under WP:NFT. Note to Yummysalad, Dyingpossum, and Funnybunnies (the latter two of whom are evidently SPAs and possible socks), please divert your attention to WP:AADD for a nice long list of arguments that are best avoided here. In short, it actually is hurting Wikipedia's integrity, that it exists is not enough (case in point, I exist), that it is evidently fun and/or "awesome" and that you've played it before is not enough either. Sorry. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep-while that is true, you could have a page that is valid on you, not true? Also in France, my homeland, i used to play this as a child, a very strategic and difficult game it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giantratz (talk • contribs) — Giantratz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • ...um, no, that's a user page. That is very different - this is why it is valid, "user space" is different from the rest of Wikipedia. Regardless, you still need to prove notability with some reliable sources. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep-this is a real game, while it was not once called this, but still, what does it matter if it's on here it is a real game, and by its being here more can find out about it, because some people apparently haven't heard about it and this is a good opportunity for others to hear about itPuppetman 00:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC) — Puppetman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep- first of all, what's everyone's problem with a game on here, at one time chess was created just like this game has been made, so it's real. Also this game could take the world by storm, being the biggest phenomenon since titanic or possibly pokemon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.251.102 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - Board Game Geek turned up information: this game was published in a chess fanzine around 30 years ago. Google search for "Chesskers" turned up roughly 50 hits - mostly myspace and some online conversations. It apparently exists, but that I recall, publication in a 'zine does not constitute notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - does not appear notable. No WP:RS, so must be WP:OR. --Evb-wiki 01:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Chess variants. Clarityfiend 01:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. anything that has this many feet should be killed. No references, no assertions of notability, and doesn't show up in Google. Horologium t-c 02:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, as a WP:NEO. Rules don't appear standardized, and the only other Chessckers Google hit gives a completely different ruleset (which isn't reliable either.) Also, I posted an example within an article that indicates an undefined portion of the rules - is the game a draw or loss? Given that these questions are unlikely to be resolved, I wouldn't consider it notable enough for a chess variant. --Sigma 7 05:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:NFT. If it must be kept, it should be merged with Chess variants, as Clarityfiend suggested. I don't think it's significant enough to have its own article. --DearPrudence 13:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Capmango 02:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment to closing admin - There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mysterious J, in which many of the "keep" enterers are alleged to be sockpuppets of eachother, resulting in a possible voting fraud here. Cool Bluetalk to me 13:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Honestly, I wouldn't worry about the voting fraud aspect. The sock votes pretty much revolve around WP:WAX, WP:ILIKEIT, and WP:INTERESTING, and my experience over the past year is that such arguments have an annoying habit of being ignored. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete this article is WAY too insignifigant. If it's "such a great game", why have I never heard of it or seen it at the store? Crowstar 17:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I hate to cite my credentials, but I worry that the message isn't yet clear. I'm an amateur expert on chess (as my contributions will demonstrate) and I know a thing or two about checkers also. I've never heard of "chessckers." It's the kind of chess variant that was made up in school one day. Just because a few kids have played it, doesn't make it notable. Until I see at least one citation from any of the publications in List of chess periodicals (which I wrote) or works of equivalent quality, I will be very disappointed if Wikipedia gives its stamp of approval to this article. YechielMan 06:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into chess variant. This is actually a fairly fun game, and Id hate to lose the pointer to it.
Can IPs make an entry here?
  • Keep - this game is real and awesome, definitely keep. Wikipedia exists to catalog all human knowledge, this certainly qualifies. Suppafly 14:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you get a grasp of policies that could be used in AfD debates before anything else. Cool Bluetalk to me 18:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Please, demonstrate to us how this qualifies. I'm very curious. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability
  • Delete made up in school one day. JJL 23:36, 11 June 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.