Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troy (chess variant)

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 redirect to List of chess variants. This seems to be the clear consensus. (non-admin closure) SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 02:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Troy (chess variant)

[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)

Mentioned in a specialist encylopedia for chess variants, but no other sources it seems. Does not pass the WP:GNG for inclusion in Wikipedia (a general encylopedia). It's not viable for every one of the thousands of entries in The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants to be given an independent article. Note that The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants and The Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants are effectively editions 1 and 2 of the same publication. It can be found online at [1]. Troy is on page 206. Suggest redirection to List of chess variants rather than actual deletion. LukeSurl^{t c} 15:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three-check chess was redirected to List of chess variants despite having a wider base of sources. --LukeSurl^{t c} 15:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of chess variants along with any other chess variant that is mentioned in Pritchard and nowhere else. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of chess variants as per above arguments. I felt that the 3-check article should have remained, but this doesn't have anywhere near sufficient coverage to be independently notable. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider either redirection or deletion. I have seen List articles in which each item must be notable enough for its own article; if List of chess variants is such a list, then redirection would not be logical in cases like this, and deletion would be appropriate. On the other hand, looking at WP:CSC, I note with amusement that some lists exist because "every entry in the list fails the notability criteria". One can imagine List of chess variants being such a list, in which case redirection might be appropriate. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In general, we add a requirement that each item must be notable enough for its own article when the list grows without limit otherwise. Example: List of cartoonists could otherwise contain many thousands of entries. When the list has innate limits to how many items can be added we often use the list as a place to cover items that are not notable enough for an article. Example: List of 7400-series integrated circuits is self-limiting; chip manufacturers aren't making chips with new 74xx numbers, jusr cheaper/faster/etc. versions of old ones. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This should probably be discussed at Talk:List of chess variants. --LukeSurl^{t c} 11:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Limiting the growth of the list is indeed a practical necessity. But looking at the earlier decision on Three-Check Chess, it seems like putting it on the list was also a practical decision, even though it fell short of what we consider notability, because it has its own active playing community. So, I stand corrected.

For this variant (Troy), I recommend deletion. But I would not be disappointed if it were first redirected to the list, and then further discussion could take place, if warranted, on the talk page of the list. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Reading the article, it looks like there are numerous non-notable (or at least, they don't have articles) variants given. It seems reasonable that it could be redirected, but if the "local" experts have a consensus and a reason not to, then delete would obviously be the option. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to list of chess variants, as it appears in an RS as a chess variant. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2018 (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.