Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Stanley Random Chess

Delete

The article is badly written on a subject that holds little or no importance to chess, or to anything else for that matter. Regardless of whether it is fictitious or not, dispose of this!

If you wish to add to the debate, the you should do so on the main page of the AfD. Thank you. Isopropyl 18:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not completely clear on the etiquette required here, but I do not understand why the article is not able to remain. Why is it important that this game is played only by a few select people? It seems to me that the very fact of its rarity would make it a candidate for an article here. SRC is very real, and is very playable by anyone and everyone. I have seen articles for online games, and puzzle games, and console games. And many of them are far less creative and readily available than SRC. I do not understand why Wikipedia would censor and delete such information. -Stubby (member of schemingmind.com)

Games or ideas known only by "a few select people" are precisely the sort of thing that shouldn't be in an encyclopaedia. Although notability guidelines don't specifically cover games, I can't imagine Wikipedia should ever include a game that's apparently being submitted by its creator, has no citable rule sources, is mentioned nowhere except for in articles written by the submitter and is apparently only being played by ten people worldwide. I can think of half a dozen good, minor games of my friends' invention that meet or surpass these criteria, but I don't think that they deserve Wikipedia entries.

I agree that Stanley Random Chess should have a web page written about it, if some people are enjoying playing it and would like to share it with others, but there's no reason why that web page deserves to be a Wikipedia entry, at least at this stage. Feel free to come back and write an entry when the game's more popular and has been cited by other publications. --McGeddon 05:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)