Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halibut gambit


 * 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   merge to English Opening. (non-admin closure) TBrandley (what's up) 17:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Halibut gambit

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article, about a very rarely played and unanalyzed chess opening, was originally merged and redirected by Quale to English Opening, but the creator has undone that. Actually, I think Quale's decision to merge and redirect was quite generous in terms of how notable this subject is. In the chess literature, I cannot see anything about this gambit, and this includes comprehensive opening books like Modern Chess Openings, and even specialized books on the English Opening such as Starting Out:The English. All of the references are games databases; coverage there doesn't give any more notability than an entry in a phonebook. A look through Google indicates that a few curious souls have asked about the gambit in discussion forums, but they cannot be used as reliable sourcing. The lack of coverage even in specialized literature indicates that there is no notability for encylopedic coverage, even merged into English Opening, and most certainly not for a separate article. Sjakkalle (Check!)  18:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment While I know little of chess openings, from the article it looks like halibut gambit is a synonym for "Jaenisch gambit" which in turn seems to be a synonym for "Schliemann gambit". "Jaenisch gambit" garners about 3K hits on Google, including a discussion by IM Silman and another by GM Gserper, both at chess.com. Both of the alternative  names are mentioned at the List of chess gambits under Ruy Lopez. It may by that this article is simply poorly named and a move to "Jaenisch gambit" or "Schliemann gambit" would be the solution here. Mark viking (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Jaenisch is a completely different sequence of moves from the so-called "Halibut Gambit". The Ruy Lopez starts with the moves 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5, and now 3...f5 is the Jaenisch/Schliemann. It is a sideline but at least a reasonably notable one, and duly covered at Ruy Lopez. The opening sequence in this article is completely different: 1.c4 b5. Sjakkalle (Check!)  05:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting. According to A10 English, Jaenisch gambit at 365chess.com, the Jaenisch gambit has the same opening moves 1.c4 b5 as in the halibut gambit article, so it looks like there are at least two different Jaenisch gambits. Agreed, the move suggestion doesn't make sense here. Thanks, Mark viking (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's occasionally called 'English, Jaenisch gambit' but Jaenisch Gambit is something different. However chess opening names are not unique, see for example Berlin Defence and Steinitz Variation. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 22:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to English Opening – nothing to merge. Double sharp (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, there are several references to this opening in chess websites, so I think this page should stay.Cliff12345 (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment, as far as I can tell, halibut gambit is used as the name slightly more often than Jaenisch gambit, though I see no harm in changing the article name. I'd also argue that the article has a bit of useful info (listing most common response and success rates of different moves) and could be expanded in the future.Cliff12345 (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 17:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect or Merge to English Opening as General notability is not meet as no 'significant coverage in reliable sources'. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 22:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge as minor footnote to English Opening. Here's a published source: Schiller says the real name is "English Gambit", and takes credit for the insult-name "Halibut":"Volker Drüke lists this as the English Gambit, but I see no need to blame the opening on them. I am tempted to call this the Halibut, because it belongs at the bottom of the sea. But that might be offensive to the Halibut, who is surely more sensible. Black gains nothing tangible for giving up this pawn." He quotes from games Rachow–Dragoy, Germany 1990, and Schakel–Thedens, Germany 1990. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Since Schiller admits that he made up the name "Halibut gambit", I don't think we should use that for an article title unless there are other paper references that use that name. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to English Opening, nothing reliable in the article to merge. I don't have any current specialist chess opening literature on the English, so I suspected that I couldn't find any mention of the 1.c4 b5 gambit in any printed material I have. Of course I was surprised to find that I was wrong, as The Oxford Companion to Chess (1992) mentions it briefly.  David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld give only the name Jaenisch Gambit, which is not surprising since it seems Eric Schiller hadn't published the Halibut name yet.  Hooper and Whyld say only this about it: "considered risky by JAENISCH, who attributed it to SALVIO".  That plus Schiller is enough for a two sentence mention in English Opening, but not even close to sufficient for a stand alone article.  The scoring percentages in the article now are taken from a couple online chess databases which are not reliable sources.  I could explain the reasons, but serious chess players already know why online databases are not reliable sources for that purpose, and I think people who are not chess players are unlikely to find the reasons very interesting. Quale (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2013 (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.