Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chess Illusion


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Chess Illusion

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )


 * Delete The article is not notable. The author of the article says that he made it up recently and seems to be selling it, so it is a bit of a commercial advertisement (and WP:COI).  The article cites a 1994 book (added: reference now removed), but it is not in that book, nor its later edition.  In the external links there is a blog with a posting by someone with the same user name as the author of the article, and he says that he is Carlos in the video.  I PRODed the article, but the tag was removed without explanation.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

i have removed any links too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlos853333 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * sorry i made to Many mistakes i wish i was a better programmer i accidentally made redirect or some deletion
 * Delete. The book source should not have been added if this particular variant is not in the book, and without it there are no reliable sources. I agree with all the arguments in Bubba73's nomination. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clear violation of WP:COI, and no valid refs for  notability.  (Interesting concept & attractive gameboard tho! - good luck Carlos in promoting your game.)  Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete obviously not notable/COI but i do agree that it sounds cool, think the knight movement might drive people insane though. Bob House 884 (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * *And* the Bishop's movement! :) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - completely non-notable. ukexpat (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Cool, but I found no evidence of independent coverage.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete no books or news sources at all. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per all others. SyG (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable enough. --MrsHudson (talk) 17:48, 2 April 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.