Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superchess

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 keep‎. ✗plicit 14:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Superchess

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No evidence of notability. Both sources are reviews and the second is very advertorial. Tagged for notability for several weeks without response. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and United States of America. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Both sources are reviews" sounds like this would be an argument for deletion. @Velella: Why should that be the case?

Two reviews in my view usually fullfil the minimum requirements of WP:GNG. More specifically, they do fullfil WP:NBOOK, which I think is the most closely related specialized guideline to the topic of tabletop games: "A book is presumed notable if ... The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include ... reviews." Daranios (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per @Daranios. The problem is that the first source is a capsule review, i.e. presumably just a few sentences, so it has a shady relation to WP:SIGCOV, hence my weak keep. The second one is half a page long, so it's ok. Would be nice if we could find some more sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The review in White Wolf has 16 full sentences, or 6 paragraphs. BOZ (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's not capsule in my book then. Consider my vote amended to full keep :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:29, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. No objection to starting a merge discussion to one of the various Chess variant pages, especially if this is going to stay a stub indefinitely, but it hasn't been around long enough for us to assess that, has it? Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At 350+ words (after I expanded the game description), it is no longer stub-class. Guinness323 (talk) 05:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above, sometimes it WP:SNOWs in April. BOZ (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added material from the extensive (360-word) review in Shadis #12 as well as coverage from a third-party website about chess variants. This should establish notability. Guinness323 (talk) 05:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per snowball, article passes WP:SIGCOV and a merge discussion can be started on the article talk page if the article remains stagnant. Flip^and Flopped ツ 22:01, 10 April 2025 (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.