Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPPOLIT

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. Although the keep votes are in the clear majority, AfD isn't a vote. None of the arguments for retention are based in policy. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IPPOLIT

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

Non-notable project. All external links provided appear to be first party (e.g. homepage) or basic descriptions. Need some coverage in reliable third party sources to justify. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No arguments provided, so I'm officially casting my own vote (I was withholding to allow someone to provide significant coverage) —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a high standard to meet for chess engines in general. For example Tom_Kerrigan's Simple Chess Program would not meet your standard. If this page goes down, I think we should take see what other pages of Category:Chess engines should be AfD'ed also, as there are many. 98.231.211.65 (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are several test results on chess forums available. The article gives several links, one of those is http://www.chesslogik.com/ , which is a third party source. Galaxy07 (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Forums are not reliable sources. Joe Chill (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this series of open source chess engines. Joe Chill (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 98.231.211.65 (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ippolit is one of the top engines on the PlayChess server http://www.playchess.com/stats/engineranking.htm 98.231.211.65 (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The highest rank it has achieved appears to be number 412. And that's still not coverage from a reliable source. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tremaster (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment This isn't a vote. The idea is to establish, by consensus, whether this meets the guidelines for inclusion for Wikipedia. Thus far, no one has provided a single reliable source that establishes notability. I will withdraw the nomination if one is provided, but without one, keep votes without explanation don't actually contribute to the discussion. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These enignes are new. Therefore they are not yet included in rating lists like CEGT or CCRL. However, several tests tell that the engines are extremely strong. I think this is a good reason for being notable. Galaxy07 (talk) 12:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The counter-argument would be that, once results of those tests are published by reliable sources (not blogs, forums, or what-have-you), then they form the basis of an article - not before. It's possible that the software will be notable, but just isn't yet, and that the article is premature. Notability can change, and if it does so after an article is deleted, we revisit the issue. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. Internet and especially software development is a fast business today, so much information is shared on forums/blogs/wikis only.

In this case, in addition, some people claim that the engines are illegal (which is stated in the article). For this reason, it could be possible that these engines would never appear on a official rating list.

The engines are notable especially because of this controversy. Even if illegal, they will definitely influence the development of future engines, since they reveal ideas that were not present in open source engines before. The future engines that will just use this ideas and not the code will be legal, since there is no copyright on ideas.

Think about it this way: There would be to reason for the Rybka autor Vasik Rajlich to forbid the mention of these engines and to claim that they are illegal if they were not notable. Galaxy07 (talk) 02:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This thing is the strongest chess engine available, which is definitely notable. However, there is reason to believe that it is based on a decompiled version of Rybka. Even though there is no real proof for this, the program is banned on most chess servers. So we have to make an ethical decision here: Should Wikipedia contribute to the distribution of software that is possibly illegal? Greetings, Stefan64 (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This engine is proved to be stronger than Rybka 3 actually, and is not playing exactly with a Rybka 3 style, which should take the 'Clone' accusation gone. A clone could not dominate the original THAT much and features within the engine are totally different. Many engine plays same style because leaded from an opening book, conclusions might be the same for some moves, this doesn't mean that it is a clone. STOP the accusation!! Soulstone 24.37.137.106 (talk) 2:15, January 12 2010

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.