Content deleted Content added
Line 34: ::::::::::I was talking re topic category. (If it's the nature of the topic category that RSs are in general hard to find, IMO it's common sense to give that consideration re GNG flexibility. I thought you said it's an argument but not a sufficient one. Now you're saying the opposite.) --[[User:Ihardlythinkso|IHTS]] ([[User talk:Ihardlythinkso#top|talk]]) 23:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC) :::::::::::I don't see anywhere where he said it was a valid argument. Could you give us a direct quote where you believe that he indicated that? --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 01:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC) ::::::::::::(...Sound of Crickets...) --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 17:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC) *'''Redirect''', noting that all of the content that is presently in the stand-alone article is probably fair game for merger, as it's not a terribly excessive amount of information. Even if we ignore for the moment that this article is unsourced and fails [[WP:GNG]] (no, a set of rules posted on a website are not RS for the purposes of establishing [[WP:Notability]]), this would still be a pretty straightforward [[WP:NOPAGE]]/[[WP:SUMMARYSTYLE]] analysis, as I see it. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b>]] [[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 04:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Line 47 ⟶ 48: *'''Keep'''. Sufficient sourcing for a brief standalone article. The calls to merge redirect seem to me to not be very well considered. The material in the article would have to be severely cut down to only two or three sentences to fit in the suggested target [[List of chess variants#Unorthodox rules on a standard_8%C3%978_board]]. Either encyclopedic information would be lost or the redirect target page would have unbalanced and lopsided coverage of just one variant in a list of dozens. That's just a very bad idea, but "merge and redirect" is such an easy knee jerk reaction that I suspect many editors don't even read the pages in question or consider how the merge might affect the target. Everything seems easy when you don't have to do it yourself.... [[User:Quale|Quale]] ([[User talk:Quale|talk]]) 08:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC) ::How is there "sufficient sourcing for a standalone article"? Nothing there establishes notability. There are four sources, two of which are essentially ads for playing the game on Chess.com or lichess.com, while the main source is a few sentences in an encyclopedia of chess variations. --[[User:Tronvillain|tronvillain]] ([[User talk:Tronvillain|talk]]) 12:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC) :::The claim "The material in the article would have to be severely cut down to only two or three sentences to fit in the suggested target" is factually incorrect. Zonal chess has five sentences. Chess on an Infinite plane has six. Anti-King chess has eight. [[Three-check chess]] has a grand total of four sentences (based upon three sentences in the only reliable source). The rest simply says things like "It is catalogued in David Pritchard's The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants where it is noted as being of probable Soviet origin, and that Anatoly Karpov was an "invincible" player in his youth" which simply duplicates what is in the references section <ref name="Pritchard">{{cite book |last=Pritchard |first=D. B. |authorlink=David Pritchard (chess player) |title=The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants |publisher=Games & Puzzles Publications |year=1994 |page=304 |quote=Probably of Soviet origin. The first player to deliver three checks wins. Said to be very skilful: two checks can be achieved fairly easily at the expense of piece sacrifices after which the prospects of a third check with severely weakened forces are close to zero. Karpov is said to have been invincible at the game in his youth. |isbn=0-9524142-0-1}}</ref> --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 17:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC) {{reflist-talk}} | |||