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 List of chess variants. Stifle ( talk) 11:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Musketeer chess

Musketeer chess (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Repeatedly resubmitted and eventually rejected at AfC, the article's citations are largely unreliable or not independent, does not meet WP:GNG. The article is also chock full of original research. I wasn't able to find any coverage in reliable sources, including both an internet search and a Scholar search. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment - The creator of this article ( Raphael.elie.kakou ( talk · contribs)) just left this rather lengthy message over on Talk:Musketeer chess, I've copied it here in its entirety below since it looks to be in response to this nomination. Nathan2055 ^{talk - contribs} 03:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Hi, this article was an effort after a few months of research, interviewing and emailing various chess experts. These experts are programmers, known chess bloggers from the biggest online chess server chess.com and other resources such as the Github project which is like wikipedia, where we can share programs and ideas. Musketeer Chess is a Chess variant. It's becoming more and more popular. For the moment only one book mentions the chess variant (it's currently in Press and i provided the ISBN), the other references are independent references from people that have done reseach on the variant, developed mathematical methods to evaluate and assess the variant (for example to provide a value for the added pieces), created engines playing the game and this was a very tough task for these programmers. They even created and used different approaches like Genetic Algorithms (i havent't mentioned this in the references and could add it), Neural Networks (2 engines), SPSA (2 engines: Stockfish and Deuterium).

The game was also mentioned several times on Game Geek and Chess Variants + References on chess.com various blogs and forums.

If you evaluate this work on criterions just based on articles or books, you will for sure find only one reference. But based on what i've said, you should be a chess player, knowing the chess community to be able to judge the reliability of the references cited. Just check chess.com to see that it's ranked number one for online play, and that it's the biggest place where a vast majority of the chess community discuss and share about various subjects related to chess (theory, problems, history, material like books and chess sets etc) and chess variants.

Also, Chess variants are popular but there are so much interesting ones to discuss. The recent books (the last one was the encyclopedia by Pritchard released in beginning 2000 and chess history in 2016 by JL Cazeaux and Rick Knownlton). These books where written before the release of the chess variant. A history of chess was released in 2016. I discussed and interviewed the authors. They clearly said that they knew about Musketeer Chess in 2015, and that their book was already reviewed and being in Press. They said to me by emails that Musketeer Chess will for sure have it's own article on their book: only available commercial variant, some unique features of the game etc.

So having no articles doesn't JUSTIFY not publishing this work.

I have many other links and references i didn't add or deleted because i found that they promoted the commercial variant (even though these people where not directly related to the inventor). I preferred to remove them and also i removed comments i made because it was a personal opinion on the game which i learned that it's not objective.

Thanks all of you for your help making this work live and thanks for your advices that for sure made my personal work evolve in a better way, helped me practice english (not a native langage).

Best regards

Raphael

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raphael.elie.kakou ( talk • contribs) 01:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Despite all of that, I still have to lean towards delete. We have the reliable sources policy for a reason; even if something is well-known in chess circles, that doesn't automatically confer notability unless reliable, secondary sources can be found. Per WP:GNG the subjects of Wikipedia articles must have significant coverage (i.e. direct and detailed discussion of the topic) in reliable secondary sources (i.e. secondary sources one step removed from the actual subject, and which have some level of editorial oversight). I'm having a hard time seeing that guideline being met here, even the creator himself said that there is only the one article and/or book mentioning it. Even if the notability guideline was somehow met, we can't just publish an analysis of a bunch of primary sources: that's literally the definition of original research. Unless additional independent sources can be found, I unfortunately don't see how this article can be retained in its current form. Nathan2055 ^{talk - contribs} 03:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to List of chess variants#Empress or princess pieces. Not enough in-depth coverage to show to notability, and is already listed in the target. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  I would agree with redirecting, I somehow missed this example when preparing the original nomination. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Redirect I received an email from creator Raphael.elie.kakou (links and emphasis added).

One source is not enough to prove notability, and I suspect that this user does not properly understand the notability guideline. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Although niche I think the game is notable enough, and helps broaden Wikipedia's coverage of Chess variants and culture. Disclaimer: I also received an email from the creator very similar to the one above. - odg ( talk) 20:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep - I think there is arguably enough chess/game oriented commentary, featuring this variant on chess, to establish an article for it. I would otherwise think it would go on a page of chess variations. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 06:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep, per discussion and page text and sources (there is more than enough here to keep the page). Randy Kryn ( talk) 18:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  Could editors arguing for keep identify exactly which sources they think are sufficient for demonstrating notability? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The array of sources looks impressive, but the sources that do mention "musketeer chess" are either blogs or self-published articles, while the sources that have passed editorial oversight, such as "Evaluation of Material Imbalances" by Kaufmann (1999) precede the invention of "musketeer chess" and so obviously don't mention it. This is an obscure chess variant with arcane rules, and there is no evidence of the game being widely played. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per the nom, the references are not impressive at all. There is not enough significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to justify this article.-- P-K3 ( talk) 13:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment I react on this comment found on this page "The recent books (the last one was the encyclopedia by Pritchard released in beginning 2000 and chess history in 2016 by JL Cazeaux and Rick Knownlton). These books where written before the release of the chess variant. A history of chess was released in 2016. I discussed and interviewed the authors. They clearly said that they knew about Musketeer Chess in 2015, and that their book was already reviewed and being in Press. They said to me by emails that Musketeer Chess will for sure have it's own article on their book: only available commercial variant, some unique features of the game etc.". My name is Jean-Louis Cazaux (not Cazeaux) and the name of my co-author is Rick Knowlton (not Knownlton). The title of our book is not "A history of chess", it is "A world of chess" (McFarland, 2017). I confirm that we knew the existence of Musketeer Chess while writing and that we have not selected it to be mentioned in our book. Cazaux ( talk) 20:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to List of chess variants, where it is covered. Sourcing for chess variants has long been a challenge. Wikipedia wants high-quality reliable sources that aren't self-published, cover the subject in some depth, and are independent of the subject. That doesn't exist for this subject (or indeed most variants). Sadly that's why most of our variant articles rely so heavily on things like Pritchard's books, despite him not actually being an authority in these variants (he just managed to get a book published). Meanwhile, if someone deeply familiar with the game publishes a blog, that's self-published. There are lots of conversations that can be had to negotiate uses of these different sources for the sake of verifiability (i.e. for use in the article), but for establishing notability we need independent secondary sources, and I just don't see that here. There are a lot of google hits, but they seem largely connected to primary research and commercial activities... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to List of chess variants where it's already covered. As such this is a pointless content fork. There was actually an AfD for a similarly not so notable chess variant awhile back and a redirect to the same article happened there. So it sounds like a reasonable option in this case also. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 06:42, 21 September 2020 (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.