Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese Chess (Bar-Zim)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 05:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Chinese Chess (Bar-Zim)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

non-notable, unreferenced chess variant Tavix (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * weak delete. Doesn't merit a mention at Chess variants. Is also essentially an orphan.  No mainspace articles link to it except a disambig page and the general list of chess topics, which lists all chess-related articles. Bubba73 (talk), 02:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. After looking at what this is, I don't think it is a classical chess variant, or even "Chinese". Rather it is an American commercial board game from the 1950s by the Bar-Zim corporation, so WP:PRODUCT is the relevant guideline here. I cannot see any evidence that this game was a commercial success, or something which has been played in competition. The only Google hits I have found are ebay postings for Bar-Zim sets, and Wikipedia with its forks and mirrors. Although WP:PRODUCT suggests merging non-notable products with the company, I cannot see that the producer Bar-Zim has an article, nor am I sure it deserves one. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability not assessed in the article. SyG (talk) 08:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a niche article on a niche topic. 1/2 dozen editors wrote parts over 2 years so it so it serves a small group of people. jbolden1517Talk  05:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * One of those editors nominated it for deletion and another (me) added a "see also" item but voted for deletion. Bubba73 (talk), 05:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing was done to the article after the initial editor except wikilinks and spelling corrections. Bubba73 (talk), 16:40, 13 March 2009 (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.