Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chess 961+


 * 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   delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Chess 961+

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This chess variant does not seem to be notable. The references given do not assess the notability. SyG (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, per nom. To me, it seems like made up applies. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note This is the same as Transcendental chess except that the bishops do not have to be on opposite colors. It is the same as Fully Randomized Chess (which has no WP article, but is in Pritchard's Classfied Encyclopedia of Chess Variants, second edition, p. 74.)  These predate Chess960, thus they predate Chess961+. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Doesn't even seem to be a game with clear rules. I found no mention of "Chess 961+" in the article's external link. No evidence has been provided that the game has been played or studied. Sjakkalle (Check!)  17:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Completely non-notable. (Besides being utterly pointless.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Chess variants, if V can be met, as NN. Jclemens (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep! Many changes have been applied to address the issues raised and elaborate the entry Tomatool (Check!)  13:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You mention you made changes to address issues raised. A big issue raised is notability. Where are your change(s) to support notability? (Because, I'm not seeing any such changes.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2011 (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.