Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phildius Defence

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. Courcelles 23:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phildius Defence

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

No secondary sources for the opening having this name. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It says that it is in ECO code A10. It would be classified under A10, but my edition of the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings does not list it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No secondary sources for this? I don't even think there are any primary sources. None of the claims in the article are supported by a reference. Even the existence of a "Phildius Defence" or "Phildius Defense" is not demonstrated as the only external page linked in the article does not contain either of those names.Quale (talk) 01:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I noticed that on the English Opening page it actually mentions 1.c4 g5, but calls it Myer's Defence. After further investigation I found taht Bernhard Phildius did in fact play this line, but it isn't named after him, and so the article appears to be somewhat of a fraud. 107.10.35.210 (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plenty of doc the opening belongs to Myers. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everything above. --MrsHudson (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to English Opening#Common responses covered as Myer's Defence. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect is a bad idea, as it gives Wikipedia's endorsement to this name. What reliable source calls this the Phildius Defence? Quale (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Many redirects are misspellings are you saying that is an endorement or that a reliable source is required? See 60,000 redirect at Category:Redirects_from_alternative_names and WP:REDIRECTS. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Invalid argument. Misspellings are at least semblances of/attempts at the article name. "Phildius" is a semblance of nothing. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I also think a redirect is of no use - no one will be looking for it by that name. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - the proof ithat someone actually looked for it is that someone actually created the page. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - What is the reasonable basis to suppose someone would use "Phildius" as their search argument when looking for this opening? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no reliable sources to back the statements of the article. SyG (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For an opening variation, I would normally expect an opening monograph or dedicated article in a reliable chess journal, and here I find none of that sort. The reply ...g5 is very rare, and theonly GM game I can find is Mednis-Hodgson in 1990 (Black lost), so the opening does not seem to have gained any trust or attention from strong players, or even amateur players (probably because 1...g5 constitutes a pointless weakening of the kingside). Agree with Quale as to why an unverifiable redirect is a bad idea in this instance. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find almost nothing on this topic on-line... Hobit (talk) 02:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.