- 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. LFaraone 01:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Beautiful 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)
Article contains no sources or assertion of notability. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The article says it was invented this year by some amateurs. Not notable. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - fails WP:GNG. The name makes searching for sources difficult but the page is entirely unsourced and my attempts to identify sources have proved fruitless. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I can't even find UNreliable sources for this. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Delete fails GNG, to say the very least.LM2000 (talk) 09:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Looks fun. Not notable. Lagrange613 21:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. Brittle heaven (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. It doesn't help that the English translation "beautiful chess" makes it incredibly difficult to search for - but even after searching through various filters and translations, I can't find anything that suggests this is notable. Yunshui 雲水 15:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Keep. Wikipedia was meant to showcase oddities and things not traditionally covered in Encyclopedia Britannica. Now I could see deleting this article from Britannica but Wikipedia is not harmed by this addition. Wikipedia has articles on every single sexual position and fetish as well as every single episode of South Park, complete with detailed plot descriptions and "Cultural References" that stretch on for pages, so why not have an article on this?Perrier Tyson (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)- Because this article doesn't meet WP:GNG. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia is not harmed" is considered an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, as is "look at this other stuff we have". Lagrange613 17:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Too many rules, too much policy wonkerage, not enough creativity. This young man in Prague has done a lot for chess and should be rewarded not stifled for his creative work.Perrier Tyson (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- Fundamental requirement for reliable sourcing is not "too much policy wonkerage". Accusing others of wikilawyering is uncivil. Join Wikijoehead in a good, long head soak. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- I´d like to thank user Tyson for defending our small (variation on chess (we really dont know each other). I can see the point, for deletion there is always excuse in some kind of wiki rule, if you want to beat the dog, it is always easy to find the stick. However, mr. Tyson adding commentary about Czech republic really doesnt help, it is not correct in the context of the article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijoehead (talk • contribs) 09:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- You accused me of being mean, and a "god" by removing your several unwarranted insertions of your no-references article into articles such as mainstream article Chess. Now you accuse others of being wikilawyers and of simply wanting to be abusive. I think you should go soak your head, Wikijoehead. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Comment There's no need for uncivil comments by anyone involved on any side of this. As others have said, the variant looks fun, but allowing material not covered by reliable sources is a Pandora's box that can't be opened - it's not an 'excuse' to delete the article - it's arguably Wikipedia's most fundamental policy. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Comment. I've been hearing the phrase "go soak your head" more and more lately. What does it mean? I don't think I'd heard it at all until this year.Perrier Tyson (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)- Delete. No RSs. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Article creator hasn't offered a single source. It doesn't have to be in English, we all know how to use google translate. It was nice of The Whispering Wind and Yunshui to attempt to do his job for him, but clearly the burden of evidence is on Wikijoehead. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2013 (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.