Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuremberg Variation

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 - there seems to be the general consensus that the move isnt notable enough to have its own article. Integration into the Ruy Lopez article with probably one sentence, considering the size of the article, and even the mergers seem to be leaning toward deletion. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nuremberg Variation

Nuremberg Variation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Although not quite as obscure or as ridiculous as the Australian Gambit (also on AFD), this is another very minor subvariation. A look at ChessBase's database ([1]) gives 178 hits which is not many. (For comparison, the Classical Variation of the Ruy Lopez opening, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5 is not the main line either, but has more than 2000 entries.) Perhaps the most notable games employing the variation covered in this article are the games Steinitz played in Nuremburg, but few or no masters have taken this line seriously since. The only source in the article is a Geocities website which does nothing beyond defining the moves. The chess opening tome Modern Chess Openings does not cover it. A discussion at WT:CHESS#One article for each variation ? suggested that for a separate article on an opening variation, there should probably be a book devoted that variation. For coverage in the main article on the parent opening, I think there should be some professional analysis which dicusses the variation. With the very minor level of coverage this variation has received, I think deletion is on the table. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC) (who is going to be playing the first round of a tournament today, and will probably be punished horridly by Caissa for nominating a chess article for deletion.)

  • Delete - too small of a variation to have its own article. Bubba73 (talk), 15:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Additional comment I have two books on the Ruy Lopez, and it isn't in either of them. It is not in the 13th edition of Modern Chess Openings. It is mentioned in a note to C60/1 in Encyclopedia of Chess Openings, listing two gqmes played in Nurnberg in 1896. I believe it is way too small to have its own article. Bubba73 (talk), 23:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per Bubba Voorlandt 20:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bubba73. Even a member of the Chess Project and an avid chessplayer like me finds this article 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 not one of them, by any criteria. SyG 18:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into Ruy Lopez - I would have said delete, but I remember someone used this against me at least twice and has been semi-effective. If you see the Ruy Lopez article, this article could be added in with a little editing. Tavix 21:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into Ruy Lopez. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 11:56, 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.