Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Backgammon match strategy


 * 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 closure) MrScorch6200  (talk &#124; ctrb) 08:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Backgammon match strategy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTESSAY. ...William 11:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - the article is a work in progress, and the material in it can be supported by reliable sources, e.g. articles by acknowledged backgammon expert Kit Woolsey. I'm not some newbie creating a random article, I'm an experienced wikipedia editor who happens to know a bit about backgammon and spotted a gap in wikipedia's coverage. Let the article develop instead of jumping on it just because it needs some work. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Appears that Backgammon is an already existing section. Please do provide RS to support that this is a separately notable subset of that, which the article has cited none so far and no hits in GBooks for an intuitively uninitiated search key I tried. No !vote.  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 12:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How about holding off on this discussion while I work on the article? The topic is in fact quite complex, and is not adequately dealt with in the Backgammon section. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Then make it a draftspace or userspace draft. Articles will receive much more rigorous critique in mainspace, but draft/userspace drafts are mostly kept as long as it is not blatantly inappropriate and not abandoned for a long time. In fact let me mak that !vote per your comments: Draftify  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 02:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unreferenced essay. If the editor can reference it, why didn't he do so before uploading it? Sandbox is the place until then.--Smerus (talk) 07:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The articles I have linked to contain similar information to what I am writing here. However I have no wish to copyvio so I'm writing the article in my own words rather than paraphrasing anyone. Don't expect a number at the end of every sentence but the information is verifiable. WP:NOTESSAY does not apply because the article is not "original research" or my personal opinions; it reflects the consensus of experts on the subject like Tom Keith, Kit Woolsey. So many good articles have started out as stubs, why can't this article be allowed to develop as well? MaxBrowne (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I've played this game a few times and concluded that a better player wins, dispite of the dices. Hence there must be a strategy just like in chess. I can't see why to remove this article. Even IF there is something poor with the article, fast improvements are the most likly outcome if article is kept. Anyone who wants to see a splendid Backgammon stategy article must draw this conclution. To hide the article away and hope it will be better is very unlikely to happen. It will atleast take ages if the article is removed. Put a warning of somekind instead. Boeing720 (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - move to Backgammon strategy. It is sourced, and we have an entire Category:Chess strategy related to chess strategy... —Мандичка YO 😜 22:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's clearly a work in progress and has an experienced editor working on it. There are a couple of sources and I'm sure there are many more that can be added. Give User:MaxBrowne and other editors a chance to complete the job. Jkmaskell (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge-n-redirect into Backgammon strategy. Academic sources also exist, in machine learning subsection of computer science, such as  which has 224 cites in scholar.google.com -- another that turned up immediately was this.  There is at least one 1992 paper cited in one of those PDFs, and the latter PDF is from 2009.  See also existing article backgammon_opening_theory which cites Woolsey et al; maybe should merge the content with Backgammon match strategy, and call the result Backgammon strategy and Backgammon strategy.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.