Content deleted Content added
Line 12: *'''Comment'''. There are very few books on chess variants (CVs), few sources in general, and that is the nature of the beast regarding the entire CV category, so ''multiple sources with significant coverage'' isn't realistic for the category, and GNG is intentionally written flexible to allow for such situation. {{u|Andreas Kaufmann}}, originator of this article and respected member of [[WP:CHESS]], has said, consistent with that context, that inclusion in Pritchard's ''Encyclopedia of Chess Variants'' is sufficient for [[WP:Notability]] for chess variant articles like this. That has been the ongoing precedent at WP:CHESS for as long as I've been here, and for numerous years prior. (Bringing an axe now is appropriate? Axing one article in isolation of many similar others following the WP:CHESS precedent is appropriate?) Thanks for consider. p.s. Pinging {{u|Seraphimblade}} for real-life example of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seraphimblade&diff=699835317&oldid=699792465 this]. --[[User:Ihardlythinkso|IHTS]] ([[User talk:Ihardlythinkso#top|talk]]) 06:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC) :*A condition like "inclusion in encyclopedia X" can indicate notability and appears in one or more SNGs when the encyclopedias it's talking about are the sort that are highly selective and serve as an indication of importance -- an indication that there are other sources covering the topic. Inclusion in most subject-specific encyclopedias is not a guarantee of that, however (except for certain biographical dictionaries, say), as they're often much more inclusive and/or more likely to include primary research and/or less subject to peer-review and/or less of a big deal (for whatever that's worth). In this case, it seems he was trying to include basically every variant he could find that he could write a little bit of content about. Even if he was a little selective, there's no indication (at least for this example -- I'm not trying to generalize) that there's any other coverage in secondary sources. — <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 13:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC) ::*There you go ''again'', mouthing off your own [[WP:OR]] re how Pritchard writes (''again''), when in fact you don't know what you're taking about (''again''). From the ''Introduction'' to ''The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants'', p. vii: <blockquote>[...] The length of this book might suggest that I have included everything on the subject I could find. This is far from being the case: hundreds of games have been excluded, and in many cases files have been compressed into an entry of just a few lines. {{parabr}}I have applied certain criteria to selection. To earn an entry, a game must have been published in some form, or at the least played by a significant number of people outside the inventor's circle of family and friends; alternatively, it must have some historical or other good claim to inclusion. [...]</blockquote> I'm sick of shielding from your steady [[WP:IDHT]] WP:OR trying to steamroll discussions. E.g., your non-consensus pushy reorg at [[List of chess variants]] caused me to withdrawl from editing that article--permanently. --[[User:Ihardlythinkso|IHTS]] ([[User talk:Ihardlythinkso#top|talk]]) 19:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC) *'''Keep'''. The rules are covered by two other RSs, the documentation of [[Lichess]] and [[Chess.com]] (which was the actual reason I came to the RS noticeboard) There’s also [https://www.chess.com/article/view/3-check-chess-tips-for-beginners some basic strategy stuff on Chess.com] written by [[Daniel Rensch]], which we could incorporate into the article. This isn’t quite a “gold-standard” source like a peer-reviewed journal, but for chess purposes it’s reasonable. | |||