Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Castling
 | This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
- 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 Google Siberian Swipe instead. (non-admin closure) 💜 melecie talk - 00:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Castling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete because the king and rook have both previously been moved.[1][2] [April Fools!] GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, but procedural note: either of them being moved is enough to disallow castling, you don't have to move both. ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽ 00:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Pinging @Chess: as an involved editor. Partofthemachine (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, pretty clear rationale. Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}on reply) 01:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Chess (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed.
- Keep because it's so easy to win when they do it. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
References
- 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.