Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Micro-Max (chess engine)


 * 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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Micro-Max (chess engine)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I found zero significant coverage. Non-notable software. SL93 (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. The nominator seems to be right.  (And except for one very minor edit, the editor that created the article is a single-purpose editor.) Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. No independent coverage. The sole claim to importance, being the shortest source code for a non-trivial chess engine, lacks verification. Furthermore, chess engines are of interest for their strength, not the shortness of the source code, so even if the record is true, the record is of dubious significance. Sjakkalle (Check!)  05:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. SyG (talk) 09:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. — Ed! (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete. Minimalism in chess programming (including but not limited to shortness of source code) is an interesting and important research problem in engineering and computer science. The work of Harm Geert Muller (including the Micro-Max engine) should be considered a notable contribution to such research. A better alternative to deletion would be to expand or merge this article to widen the scope of discussion - see Wikipedia article Toledo Nanochess. Oldsalo (talk) 11:36, 31 December 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.