Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pickering 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   no consensus. There's a wide variety of opinions and some consensus that this article shouldn't be here, but none as to what specifically to do with it. Discussion on moving, redirecting, merging, etc. can continue at Talk:Pickering Defense. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Pickering Defense

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

The subject is a very rare chess opening, 1.e4 h5. The ChessBase database of four million + games has only 42 game examples. Although there are other dubious (e.g. Latvian Gambit) and poor (e.g. Marshall Defense) openings, these have at least been played often, sometimes as a fair attempt to surprise an opponent, and have been analyzed in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings and other chess publications. That is not true of this line, there are virtually no Black players would play 1.e4 h5? except as a silly joke, since the move 1...h5 has no redeeming features. (We have some other silly joke openings as well, but at least they are covered in the Oxford Companion to Chess.) Apart from these silly joke game examples, the only non-wiki analysis I have seen of this is here, where it is adorned with a skull (meaning "don't play it") along with the words "never seen". Looking at the table of contents at Amazon, even Eric Schiller's large collection of opening horrors called Unorthodox Chess Openings doesn't seem to cover this line. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:V and WP:N, among other things. SyG (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I note that the wikibooks article cites three references, but BCO2, although listed, actually has no mention of this opening, so I must consider the other two references perhaps suspect also. If it's not in ECO, per nom, then I doubt the other two cover it. MadScot (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The Wikibooks article lists BCO2 and MCO14. I don't have those editions, but it is not in BCO1, MCO13 or MCO15, under any of those names.  And it is not listed in ECO1.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought I could take a look at MCO14, and I found that 1...h5 is mentioned... in a way... in the introduction to the chapter "Unusual King's Pawn Defenses" where he covers 1...a6, 1...b6, and 1...g5. De Firmian writes :"Other moves, such as 1...h5, are not considered as they are simply too bad and need no discussion.". I'm not sure if De Firmian going out of his way to tell us that something is non-notable ironically increases that subject's notability. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * MCO-15 says the same thing. But neither MCO or any of the references I checked give a name to 1. e4 h5.  Non-notable.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Move to King's Pawn Opening where it already has context. No need to have it by itself.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Move to King's Pawn Opening. Rarely played but worthy of inclusion. Alexius08 (talk) 02:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Users Sjakkalle and SyG accurately summarise this article's notability, i.e. it doesn't have any. Brittle heaven (talk) 08:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * weak Keep That it's a bad idea doesn't mean it isn't worth an article. This is not a chess instruction book, covering only the good ones. If it's notoriously lousy, it's notable for that reason. Something widely used as a bad example can be notable.(if it is in fact so used)DGG (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I agree with almost every word you say here. The disagreement is on whether this opening is indeed "notoriously lousy", or just plain "lousy". There does indeed exist an opening which is notoriously lousy, called the Damiano Defense, which is used in several publications as an example of bad opening play. For that opening, I would agree with you, the Damiano is indeed notable. The AFD reason here is that this opening lacks coverage in any chess literature, and since the volume of chess literature consists of thousands of books, many, if not most, of them devoted to various opening lines, that is saying something. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Damiano is the "poster child" of bad openings, and there are sources of information about it. I can't find anything on this opening in the standard references, not even a name.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete unless a suitable reference is found. The article says it is called "Pickering Defense, Goldsmith Defense or Desprez Defense".  I can't find a reference for any of those except The Oxford Companion to Chess has "Desprès Opening", but that is 1. h4, not 1.e4 h5.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to King's Pawn Game, adding the details of its nonusefulness to the list of possible responses by black. I could find no sources in Google News / Archive for the three alternate games given (Pickering Defense, Goldsmith Defense or Desprez Defense), but the term is sourced. If there are meaningful sources to be added, the article can be recreated as a standalone in the future. Alansohn (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge to King's Pawn Game. While I initially thought the subject had enough notability as an opening chess move, it appears that it's so rarely/poorly used as to merit little discussion.  The one dubious source for 'pickering defense' mentioned on google scholar  is clearly not enough to establish notability for its own article.Themfromspace (talk) 22:39, 6 October 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.