Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chess openings named after animals


 * 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   no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

List of chess openings named after animals

 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete Article is non-notable topic. There is no notable reason to group or categorize chess opening by animal name.  HyperCapitalist (talk) 06:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep We have already List of chess openings named after people and List of chess openings named after places. Why not to have third largest "group"? --MrsHudson (talk) 06:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and after this one is processed, depending on the outcome, I will AfD those too. HyperCapitalist (talk) 07:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Query, has any reliable source commented on the profusion of animal names for chess openings? Abductive  (reasoning) 07:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. I added this reference: Unorthodox Chess Openings by Eric Schiller. --MrsHudson (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. IMO, that is not a reliable source. Eric Schiller's books on chess have been heavily criticized. That includes Unorthodox Chess Openings, which received Grandmaster Tony Miles' famous two-word review in Kingpin: "Utter crap." Schiller's reliability on almost any chess-related subject is questionable. His reliability as a source for the names in this article is particularly dubious. I suspect that most of these "opening names" were just made up by Schiller and have been used by few if any other writers. Orangutan, Hippopotamus, Rat, and Hedgehog are certainly legitimate, but beyond that I'm very skeptical. Good luck finding "Horsefly Defense" and such in any real chess book. Krakatoa (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if Schiller's book is a reliable source it has no bearing on this AfD. Schiller's book is about the openings themselves -- not about lists of openings named after animals.  One might understand why a book about openings named after people (Proper nouns) and maybe places (Proper nouns) might be interesting from a historical/biographical perspective, but I don't think this extends to types of animals. HyperCapitalist (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Schiller's book is fine as a reliable source but agree with HyperCapitalist because as far as I can see the book asserts no notability about a collection (a list) of openings named after animals. SunCreator (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete even assuming that the main ref is reliable, which it appears not to be, what is exactly notable about chess moves named after animals? unless the moves resemble the shape of the animal, (trying to think of reasons for notability), this is an indiscriminate list, in that there is no information of value in such a listing. i could think of lots of lists of chess moves that would be discriminating, and im not even a chess buff.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Then which references should we use to prove notability? How about New in Chess, ChessGames.com, Chess.com? --MrsHudson (talk) 03:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * References which talk about the propensity of openings to be named after animals. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are openings, which are named after animals. This is a fact. And we should not explain in the list WHY they are named so. We should just give reliable sources which can prove that the opening is really named after animal. And I was asking my colleagues (chess wikipedians) which sources we should consider as reliable. --MrsHudson (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are chess openings named after animals notable? This seems to be a "list of shades of colors of apple sauce" per WP:SALAT.  HyperCapitalist (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you do not know why Elephant Gambit, Hippopotamus Defence or Orangutan Opening are notable openings it does not mean that they are not notable. --MrsHudson (talk) 05:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The question isn't if the openings are notable, it is if the list of openings is notable or somehow furthers the state of human knowledge. HyperCapitalist (talk) 05:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, as indiscriminate and unsupported by reliable sources. These chess openings are not grouped by tactic or strategy or anything else relating to the playing of chess, unlike List of chess openings. Furthermore, some the actual names are in question, due to the self-published nature of the source (Schiller). Abductive  (reasoning) 05:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The list contain useful information and can autonomously improve reader's erudition. I do not understand why this list is worse than others. I added a lot of reliable sources into the article and will continue to add. --MrsHudson (talk) 12:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll look at the sourcing again in a few days. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete As per indiscriminate. The moves that have genuine notability within chess strategies, such as the ones cited by Mrs. Hudson, can have their own article. Warrah (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a good start. The openings are sourced and probably material about why the openings were named like they were can be found, if you allow some time. &mdash;ZeroOne ( talk / @ ) 11:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Some themes may be insignificant, but animal-themed variations have adorned opening books at least as far as back 1901. Some of the "animal" variations have become formidable weapons in top-class competition chess. A book has been published on animal-themed variations, aimed mainly for younger players (aka the next generation). Enough citations added, plenty more around - remember, "keep" does not a ton of citations, it needs only reasonable expectation that they can be found, but the recent edit adds some serious citations. I expect some "delete" votes to switch to at least neutral after check the added citations. --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep After this article was nominated for deletion, the editors have spent a great deal of time finding citations and explaining the significance of these lines. More can and will be done in those regards, but the subject is notable enough to warrant keeping it. Krakatoa (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My point in nominating this article wasn't that the lines/openings aren't significant/notable -- it is that a list of these openings based on them having an animal in their name isn't. For example, I would also nominate an article for nomination if it was a list of chess openings whose names were anagrams of some other word. HyperCapitalist (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Some years back I nominated for deletion the list of chess openings named after places (then titled "list of ethnic chess openings", the article was renamed following that debate). While I see no really strong reason why the "animals" and "places" lists should be treated differently, given that I nominated "...after places", I don't think it will be surprising that I am somewhat skeptical to the need for "...after animals". The problem with the articles is that the entries on such a list are quite loosely connected; the "Medusa Gambit" and the "Halibut Gambit" are totally different openings, and have little in common (except that they are only played by those with a death wish). The nomenculture is a fairly intereresting part of chess history, and most opening books cover the reasoning for the name somewhat, but I think Chess openings does a fairly good job of covering that aspect. A further problem is that many of the entries on the list are very exotic, I would almost say that the author who gave these openings their names just made it up one day. "Crab Opening 1.a4 e5 2.h4" is White being silly, and I don't know of any book analyzing that. Others, such as "Great Snake 1.c4 g6" are an animal name attached to an opening, but which does not have widespread acceptance. My book on 1.c4 ("Starting Out: The English") does not use that name. The most notable animal on the list is probably the Hedgehog. With apologies to MrsHudson, who has made a number of very strong and positive contributions to our chess articles, and other members of the Chess WikiProject who I am now bucking against, my vote is to delete due to lack of notability and coverage of the vast majority of listed entries, and the lack of a chessical connection between the entries. Sjakkalle (Check!)  17:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - If notability of the topic is in doubt, then it seems a case of WP:Notability/RFC:compromise A.4 in which the Majority supported "Lists may be exempted from the General notability guideline". SunCreator (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent point, particularly since notability is the sole basis the nominator urged for deleting this article. Krakatoa (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This artictle is based on real facts to it must be kept.--NovaSkola (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Suncreator Voorlandt (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable. I Do Care (talk) 08:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable, per HyperCapitalist. SyG (talk) 18:09, 31 October 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.