Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Popeye (chess)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 DELETE. postdlf (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Popeye (chess) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Could not locate any reliable sources for this topic (WP:V), so I tagged for maintenance over a year ago. No improvement since then, so I'm assuming this software is unnotable (WP:N). Marasmusine (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, found some references. --AndrejJ (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. With regards enpassant.dk, do you know of our requirements for self-published sources? I don't think that the site's maintainer, Eric Bentzen, qualifies. Marasmusine (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did find some sources:
- Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The sources listed above do not seem to be reliable, and thus this page fails the notability guidelines. OSborn arfcontribs. 18:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - I struggled to find its notability especially bearing in mind the number of authors. I found a source that would probably meet Verfiability on google scholar[1]. But it is not a strong paper and significantly does not provide a citation which would question the notability.Tetron76 (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- Variant Chess, Volume 3, Issue 28, Summer 1998, pages 164-166. http://www.bcvs.ukf.net/eureka.htm
- http://sh-kunstschach.eu/download/australian_chess_2003-2007.pdf
- What is the criteria for notability of software? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a good question, that is not easy to answer. I think the criteria for inclusion in a place such as Software_for_handling_chess_problems#Popeye is low but for its own article without meeting WP:GNG I think that some clear contribution to chess or chess computers is needed. This would mean something like:
- that other programs have adopted the algorithm
- it was the first computer to be able to solve a famous problem
- it does well in a competition such as World Computer Chess Championships
- While this is a specialised computer dealing with fairy problems - I think this is not a fact that adds notability. If it was General Chess Playing Program able to play any version of chess could have made it notable problem solving doesn't really. I had a computer in 1981 that would cheat if it got too far behind. Tetron76 (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a good question, that is not easy to answer. I think the criteria for inclusion in a place such as Software_for_handling_chess_problems#Popeye is low but for its own article without meeting WP:GNG I think that some clear contribution to chess or chess computers is needed. This would mean something like:
- 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.