Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corn Stalk Defense


 * 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. There was no support for the nomination to delete. Although many participants suggested merge as an alternative, most said "keep or merge", or "merge if...", and only one suggested where to merge, but not specifically what to merge. Others suggested merging with some article that does not appear to even exist yet. It is not reasonable, therefore to conclude that there was consensus for a merge from this discussion, although from a glance it seems to have been a popular recommendation. Keep by default. Merge can happen by editor action independant of AfD.  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 15:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Corn Stalk Defense

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

In my opinion this chess opening is not notable, as the references do not list any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The lead does nothing to demonstrate any notability (quite the contrary). SyG (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - needs tidying up, but the article asserts that it was an opening played in recorded games by a notable chess player. - Fritzpoll (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Merge per the proposals below - an article on this class of chess opening would be better than simply removing the material. -Fritzpoll (talk) 10:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - This "opening" is the epitome of non-notableness. No one rated over about 1400 would play this today (and very few would have done so even in Preston Ware's time). The fact that a second-rate player fond of ridiculous openings played it over a century ago does not warrant inclusion. Krakatoa (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge I question whether Preston Ware was a notable player. There is no article on him in any chess encyclopedia (e.g. The Oxford Companion to Chess, Golombek's Encyclopedia of Chess, The Encyclopedia of Chess (Sunnucks), or The Batsford Chess Encyclopedia (Divinsky)), although the first of those does mention the Ware Opening (i.e. 1.a4, a/k/a/ the Meadow Hay Opening).  To my surprise, there is an article on Ware in Edward R. Brace's An Illustrated Dictionary of Chess, which describes him thus:  "(1820-1890) American chess player. He was an influential member of the Mandarins of the Yellow Button of Boston.  In 1882 he visited Europe and played at Vienna (1882). Here he provided Steinitz with his first defeat in nine years, but finished last of those who completed the tournament."  Ware is also listed in Gaige's Chess Personalia, but so are assorted FIDE Masters and such.  Gino di Felice's Chess Results, 1747-1900 shows just four significant tournaments that Wade played in:  the Second American Chess Congress (1871) (5th-6th out of 9); 4th American Chess Congress (1876) (7th out of 8); 5th American Chess Congress (1880) (7th-8th out of 10); and the aforementioned Vienna 1882, where he finished 16th out of 18th with 11/34. Three of his eleven points came from forfeits, and he most likely would have finished last if Noa (9 points) and Fleissig (7 points) hadn't dropped out after the first half (it was a double round-robin).  Against the top half of the field, Ware had the win against Steinitz, 2 draws, and 15 losses. Ware scored 32.8% (+18 =8 -41) in his games given on chessgames.com ; as you'll see, the vast majority of his games against notable players are losses.  (By comparison, I score 83.3% and no one would call me notable .)


 * Nonetheless, I have changed my vote to Merge. I think this opening and the other "Brand X" responses to 1.e4 (e.g. ...f6, ...Na6, ...Nh6, ...h5, ...f5) should be merged into an article called something like Unusual responses to 1.e4. Krakatoa (talk) 10:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's correct to say Preston Ware was a second rate player(unless you mean by todays playing strength). In his day Ware played in top tournaments and was able to win a competitive game against Wilhelm Steinitz in 1882 when Steinitz was the Unofficial World Chess Champion. ChessCreator (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge Firstly I agree with the above, this opening has no interest to respectable chess players. In chess terms it's a useless opening. I believe this article could be written to be interesting to the casual reader, but is unlikely to meet the WP:RS criteria for referencing.
 * There are several other first move openings all in the same situation Amar Opening, Durkin Opening, Barnes Opening to name but three. I think together they could make one complete and referenced article. ChessCreator (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Update to Keep or Merge in light of new reference information. Amar Opening, Durkin Opening, Barnes Opening where poor examples. Better examples are Goldsmith Defense(1.e4 h5), Adams Defense(1.e4 Na6) and Lemming Defense(1.e4 Na6) ChessCreator (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge - I agree with Quayle ChessCreator - I don't want to lose this information, but it is questionable whether it should be an article. I think it would be best to collect several of these unusual openings into one article. Bubba73 (talk), 02:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak merge. In the defense of Amar, Durkin and Barnes per ChessCreator above, each of those openings are one of 20 possible opening moves on the first move by White, and each of them have an entry in the Oxford Companion to Chess (1984 edition), which is the closest we get to a gold standard chess encyclopedia. The Corn Stalk does not have such an entry, and if we will have an article on each of the Black responses to White's first move, we are up to 400 possible combinations, most of them which are not taken seriously by anybody. As Krakatoa says, this opening is not something you will find played seriously by players with a 1400 rating (for non-chess buffs, that is a mid-level amateur tournament player), or even by players with a 900 rating, except as some silly joke. After all, the move 1...a5? is a time wasting weakening of the queenside which does nothing for development and has no redeeming characteristic over 1...c5 for example. However, we could expand the article King's Pawn Game with a mention of some of the obscure responses to 1.e4, like this one, provided that there is some source to ensure verifiability, the Chessmaster comment is such a source. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Putting them under King's Pawn Game as you suggest is also a good thought. Rather than being an article for these, there could be a section for unusual responses. (Probably one for unusual responses to 1.d4 too.)  Bubba73 (talk), 07:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge with redirects, if merger is possible while conserving all of the data. There is a fair amount of third party commentary about all of these unorthodox openings.  I think Benjamin and Schiller's Unorthodox Chess Openings (Collier; ISBN 0020165900) covers them all, as does Dunnington's Winning Unorthodox Openings (Everyman; ISBN 1857442857), which focuses on Black's response to odd moves by White.  My own favorite is the American Attack in Alekhine's Defense (1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Ng8).  At any rate, these chess openings would appear to meet our general notability guideline, being the subject of multiple works of commentary by third parties who write chess books.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I think any chess opening played by a notable player (Preston Ware is notable), is worthy of keeping. Also, this is a response to White's most common opening move! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.31.12 (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep. Seems to meet WP:N as references have been provided. But I would not really have an objection to the content being merged to a larger article on unusual openings.Pawnkingthree (talk) 09:45, 27 February 2008 (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.