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 Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madrasi chess[edit]

The notability is not explained in the article, no reference is given (e.g. a book) to show this chess variant is notable. It has been suggested to me that this article could just be merged into Chess variant, but that would necessarily remove a certain amount of information, so I prefer to have the opinion of the community first. SyG (talk) 06:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found this article interesting and it seems to have mentions outside Wikipedias, too. So keep. Lab-oratory (talk) 08:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but barely, since I don't have access to the sources which could establish notability. A look at this website indicates that a reasonably lengthy article has been written about this variant in an magazine called Pat a Mat (issue 29 apparently), and there although a Google search revealed many Wikipedia mirrors, it did have some sources which were independent. I don't think this variant is something which is played very much, rather it looks like a variant rule for problem composers and solvers which is a completely different discipline from playing chess, and a discipline where I will need to plead ignorance. Although the status of the author of the article should not really be a factor in determining inclusion, I have noted that this article was written in 2003 by Camembert, administrator and former arbitrator on Wikipedia, apparently not so active now, but he could perhaps give some more information. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete/Merge no assertion of notability for this particular variant and no reliable 3rd party sources included in the article. Although, I accept that article aren't "complete" upon their creation attempts should be made to meet minimum criteria of notability and verifiability. Including a reference to it with citations within Chess variants would seem more than sufficient. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a chess variant that has an article in Oxford Companion to Chess, published by the Oxford University Press. Some additional sourcing would be a good idea. Mandsford (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I think this is probably notable, in line with the several other articles linked under Fairy chess. If Madrasi problems have been selected for inclusion in one of the FIDE albums, that would be clear evidence of notability. -- BPMullins | Talk 16:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has now two good references: the Oxford companion mentioned above, and Pritchard's book on chess variants. Pritchard cites the journals Eteroscacco 7 and Nost-algia 288; but I don't have those. Eteroscacco does have a website though [1] which also mentions Madrasi. Having a quick google, there seems to plenty material available online to expand the article. Voorlandt (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a legitimate variation due to two excellent references. Bubba73 (talk), 01:17, 23 June 2008 (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.