Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wizard (chess)

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 Fairy chess piece. Star Mississippi 20:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wizard (chess)[edit]

[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)

A particular piece from a not particularly significant commercial chess variant. Only sources are WP:UGC. A discussion at the chess wikiproject didn't suggest anything promising, and the article creator never responded to this. This New York Times article (which is not in our article) is probably the best thing that's out there, and it's the epitome of a passing mention. PROD on Wizard removed without a substantive justification. I am also nominating the following related page, which suffers from exactly the same issues:

-- JBL (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both I'm sentimentally sympathetic to harmless bits of hobbyist material (as I said somewhere in the Doug Coldwell cleanup effort, I think Wikipedia would be poorer without roadside attractions). But the sourcing is unreliable and/or superficial (both being briefly stated and, potentially worse, not reflecting any intense analysis). The "Chess Variants" website is user-generated content, and none of the particular pages on it that are cited in these articles appear to be written by subject-matter experts, in the Wikipedian sense of the term, so that escape clause is inapplicable. As an organizational matter, having articles on pieces rather than games seems to have generated some confusion, thanks to the reuse of names between variants. The natural conceptual unit is the chess variant, or perhaps the overall topic of chess variants, not the piece. XOR'easter (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree w/ what you wrote, but keep in mind there can be exceptions, e.g. princess, empress, and recently too Berolina pawn (see Talk:Berolina pawn#Proposed split); the The Oxford Companion to Chess has stand-alone entries for those three as well (plus others incl camel, amazon, nightrider, grasshopper, etc.). --IHTS (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per UGC concerns, and I'm not finding much on google search. Valereee (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to Fairy chess piece per ATD. There is obviously no V issue, merely a lack of SIGCOV causing N, which is a picture perfect rationale for an upmerge to a larger article covering the topic. Jclemens (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, there's obviously nothing but trivial mentions, and the sourcing to user-generated content only means there's no verifiability, either, so a merge seems unsupportable. Finally, as far as the possibility of a redirect: do we know what a user would be searching for with sufficient certainty, to unambiguously redirect them? What if they're looking for something in Harry Potter? I did Wikipedia searches for Wizard in chess and Fool in chess (as searchers are not likely to use parentheses) and the Omega results were in the top 3 or 4 (and so was Potter), which would argue for deletion, unless we're certain what users are searching for. Mathglot (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fairy chess piece. Hobit (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both to Fairy chess piece. Don't oppose removal, though. Deckkohl (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to improve the encyclopedia is to redirect with perhaps a parital merge of anything verifiable that's left out of the target. Note that a redirect allows future editors to see the history and dig out the chess diagrams, etc, so a deletion may not serve us well. —siro χ o 07:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator: I personally would be happy with any of the options discussed here. --JBL (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to fairy chess piece or Omega Chess. Just not enough for independent notability here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect probably to fairy chess piece. The sources are adequate to show that this exists and it can and should be covered in an overview article. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2023 (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.