| Revision as of 20:58, 13 October 2009 editLtPowers (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers30,800 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:59, 13 October 2009 edit undoLtPowers (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers30,800 editsm fix link, grammarNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| *<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. ] (]) 13:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)<!--Template:Delsort--></small> | *<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. ] (]) 13:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)<!--Template:Delsort--></small> | ||
| *Added a few more sources, including a mainstream published book, and articles from ], manufacturers of the game. ]<sup>(])</sup> 20:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC) | *Added a few more sources, including a mainstream published book, and articles from ], manufacturers of the game. ]<sup>(])</sup> 20:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete'''. Appears to violate ], as it's instructional material for playing a game. It's possible for encyclopedic |
*'''Delete'''. Appears to violate ], as it's instructional material for playing a game. It's possible for an encyclopedic article to be written on a specific game strategy, but this isn't it. ] <sup><small><small>]</small></small></sup> 20:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 20:59, 13 October 2009
Lepanto opening
- Lepanto opening (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:GNG. While there is (brief) coverage of the opening it is not enough, particularly since those sources available fail the test of being third-party, reliable and independent. Of the sources I can find one was written in an unreliable 'zine by the inventor of the opening and the rest are similarly unreliable (player zines that aren't just written by amateurs but, as player magazines, don't really work as evidence of notability). Ironholds (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Added a few more sources, including a mainstream published book, and articles from Wizards of the Coast, manufacturers of the game. David 20:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Appears to violate WP:NOTHOWTO, as it's instructional material for playing a game. It's possible for an encyclopedic article to be written on a specific game strategy, but this isn't it. Powers 20:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)