Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacking chess pieces

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stacking chess pieces

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

WP:NOTESSAY or NOTHOWTO or made up. Is the fact that you can stack chess pieces notable? Gbawden (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Very strong delete~~ If it is real and can be notably referenced in the future I would welcome it back, but until then . . ! Aoziwe (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I'm not familiar with this and we can delete it at best until a better article is available. SwisterTwister talk 07:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move and rework, or merge, would be better than deletion. It seems to me that "stacking toys" (such as rings, blocks and cups) and "stacking play" are obviously notable, with many sources in GBooks etc, but we (bizarrely) don't have an article on them. There are a number of sources in GBooks that discuss the phenomena of children stacking chess pieces (remove the speech marks from the search term to find them), and our article says there is coverage in Chess Life (Aug 1987) and Searching for Bobby Fischer. It seems to me that, if we do not think this should have a standalone article (no comment on that yet), the correct solution would be to move it and rework it so that it is about stacking toys and play generally. Alternatively, we could merge it to a broader article about chess. Like most things, it is clearly part of a notable broader topic. James500 (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC) The content of the article is not an essay (it contains no significant expressions of personal opinion, at least none that are not so minor can't be easily fixed (WP:PRESERVE); it certainly doesn't consist more or less entirely of such content, which is the actual test) nor it is a how to (it contains no instructions or advice expressed in the imperative mood, which again is the actual test). It is sourced, citing a magazine and a film as references. Much of it could be cited to other sources. I should also point out that 'essay' and 'how to' are not arguments for outright deletion. They are arguments for transwiki to our sister project Wikiversity, which accepts both. And the article isn't particularly short either. James500 (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This article is a very short unsourced essay and howto guide about putting one chess piece on top of another. Even assuming, arguendo, that the concept of placing one toy on top of another is notable so that we could write an article, it's clear that this article is not it, nor would any of its current content be mergeable there. Reyk _YO! 13:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's nothing of substance here. That a magazine about chess has, at some point, mentioned the phenomenon of people intentionally placing chess pieces on top of each other makes it as notable as Clicking chess pieces together, Twirling pawns between fingers, Throwing chess pieces at kibitzers, or Accidentally knocking over a rook. All that said, I agree that there's a potential article along the lines of stacking (play), but this is not a starting point for that article. It's possible chess pieces could be mentioned in such an article, but there are untold numbers of objects children stack such that it doesn't seem like there's anything to say about chess pieces and stacking that you couldn't say about checkers, playing cards, pots and pans, or cookies. We do have articles for toy block and construction set, which seem like more sensible places to build out the concept of stacking. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: to echo Rhododendrites, just because children do a thing doesn't mean there are articles about Sleeping in a box, Wearing a parent's shoes, or Smearing food on one's face. I am WP:AGFing that this isn't just trolling in the first instance. Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination as original research, at best. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my opinion to keep This could be one of several aticles on stacking toys. There are articles on sport stacking of cups, stacking cards, House of cards, and dice stacking (which is only a bit better than this article). Needs work, but this is not a reason for deleting it. Aoziwe (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aoziwe: You'll need to strike your previous !vote. If you're proposing keeping this as a stand-alone article (vs. using it to build a bigger article), I don't think you'll see much support unless you substantiate that with links to sources talking about it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck above. Sorry - I thought editing was only allowed below the "relisting" line? (It now has one ref) (By the way WP:DEM, so not a vote?) Aoziwe (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. You can edit above the relisting line, but new comments go at the bottom. You are right that it's not a vote. You'll see people using the term "!vote" for that reason. It means "not-vote". These discussions look like votes, and sometimes play out as a vote, but they're not. They're attempts to find consensus, with strong arguments carrying more weight, based on the evaluation of whoever closes it. Still, it's uncommon to see a close that doesn't have majority support and people (closers and contributors) are certainly influenced by the discussion as it has taken shape so far. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a joke addition. Delete it and we can move on. Jkmaskell (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2016 (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.