This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Knight Errant. – Rich Farmbrough 13:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A comparison of Knights Errant to the really important topics in Wikipedia:

Wikipedia topic: "Jester Dormitory"

Google hits: 252 using "Jester Dormitory"

Summary: An article about a dormitory on the University of Texas Austin campus.

Notable comments: Among students, it is said that Jester East is the cleaner of the two towers as well as characteristically the 'sports' dorm, housing many of the UT athletes.

Wow. Better delete the Knights Errant because we have to make room for the really important stuff like Jester Dormitory. . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.15.120 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, someone has nominated that for deletion too (though I personally voted to merge some of it with the University article). Any other similar articles you can point out will be appreciated (by me at least). I'm sure there are plenty. This, however, is irrelevent to the plight of "Knights Errant". -R. fiend 20:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and 252 is still more google hits than this group seems to get (see below). -R. fiend 20:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits

"Knights Errant blog" gets almost 5000 hits on Google. Before dismissing Knights Errant, the Wiki folks should know the entire association of the bloggers is due to the buzz created in the chess world for the de la Maza approach to chess improvement. -Jadoube --72.16.15.120 22:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to be clear here, "knights errant blog" gets 0 hits on goggle when you use the quotes. without the quotes it gets close to 5000, but by no means are most of those associated with your little group. More accurate is a search for "knights errant" blog chess, which gets us down to less than 200. -R. fiend 14:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable chess club/blog/journal/website/llama. Also see Talk:Knight Errants, they seem to be using us as some sort of promo ad. Recommend redirecting to Knight-errant. Garrett^Talk 01:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable chess club. I do not recommend a re-direct as per Master Thief Garret as the subject Knight-errant has nothing to do with the subject of chess, blogs or llamas.(excepting the title credits of Monty Python and the Holy Grail) Hamster Sandwich 02:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant a redirect since it's a valid alt spelling of Knight-errant. A user could search for that wording and thus still find the article. But deletion and recreation as a redirect would also work. Garrett^Talk 02:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable according to Google, and this page has the wrong caps to redirect to Knight-errant. -Harmil 02:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah! Good point, that. Yes indeed. :) Garrett^Talk 02:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Knight-errant - it's a valid alt spelling (despite the caps), and there's nothing to be lost by redirecting. - ulayiti (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• While I believe this may be an easy misconception of a legit spelling, I believe it is still wrong (even discounting the caps). The plural of knight errant should be knights errant. Nevertheless, a redirect (no merge) is fine with me, as it's a minor error that could be made. Would hopefully discourage recreation too. -R. fiend 03:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The title should be changed to Knights Errant. Jadoube — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.15.120 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Jadoube is correct: we (the group of blogges) are the Knights Errant, and if the correct search term is entered in Google the results are significantly different. BDK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.193.88 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well "knights errant" chess blog -wikipedia gets less than 190 hits (many from different pages on the same sites). Not many for bloggers, really, who have quite a high bar to clear for inclusion in wikipedia. -R. fiend 05:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Knight-errant --Angr/_{t?k t? mi} 06:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and recreate as a redirect to Knight-errant. —Stormie 08:47, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and recreate: Wikipedia is not a school noticeboard nor Everything2. A local club is not encyclopedic content unless it alters the world in such a dramatic way that the world talks about it (that's the world, not the people in the club). The concept of the knight-errant itself is a bit of a mess, but that's another matter. Geogre 14:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• With all due respect to Geogre, the Knights Errant is not a local club but a worldwide phenomenon in the chess blogosphere -- with bloggers from the US, The Netherlands, Australia, India, Romania, Belgium, etc. They have all come together around a "revolutionary" approach to chess improvement. [DG] 192.223.226.6 18:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep- seems to be a nationwide organization that is just barely notable enough to be kept. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• A few comments:

1. Someone above said the Knights are "using us as some sort of promo ad". I have no idea where they got this idea from. We are not promoting anything. The Knights Errant are a friendly group of bloggers who are all trying to get better in chess by following a certain chess training program (mentioned in the entry). Look at the blogs in my sidebar (http://chessconfessions.blogspot.com): we are a bunch of schlumps trying to get better at chess. Nothing more.

2. As for how "important" we are as a group in the blogosphere, this is the key point. Ask anybody in the chess blogosphere about the "Knights Errant" and they will know who we are. The question is whether anything from the chess blogosphere is worthy of inclusion. This is a fair question. I would propose it is at least as important as, oh say, the East Branch Pecatonica River in Wisconsin. Let the Knights Errant entry stay up for a while and then see how many more hits they get than the more obscure entries.

3. When I started learning chess, and was trying the Knight's chess improvement program (without actually knowing about them), it would have been great for me if this had come up at Wikipedia. I searched the web for terms that would have come up, but they didn't come up in Google back then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.225.228 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I fully support keeping the two entries. I view their entries not as advertisements or promotion, but as a bit of information that interested parties may not find elsewhere on the internet without a difficult search. I too wish that this had been here, as it would have made my start as a blogger easier. Thanks, generalkaia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.12.154.251 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 28 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.