Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poole versus HAL 9000


 * 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   Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Poole versus HAL 9000

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The analysis of the game is WP:OR. You could probably find citations for the moves themselves, but analysis such as White is also worse if the queen takes one of the knights, which could be answered by Nd3 or Bd6 is the opinion of the editor who wrote that. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC) -- RoySmith (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article states that game is a duplicate of an actual game played in 1910; as such the analysis is not necessarily original research and may be an analysis of the actual game (although it is probably in need of better referencing).  The 1910 game is supposedly described in "The 1000 Best Short Games of Chess" by Irving Chernev.Vulcan&#39;s Forge (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I removed the POV that the nominator noted in his nomination. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You removed the one particular item I quoted, but that was just an example. The entire analysis is inherently OR.  -- RoySmith (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It is reportedly annotated in The 1000 Best Short Games of Chess by Irving Chernev and other books, plus chessmaster 3000. I can't verify that though.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I added some analysis by Matanović for a move that was feared WP:OR. It only needed a little research to add the supporting source material. Which brings to question why the nom wouldn't simply add citation tags to the article, instead of asking for article assassination. (It's my understanding that an article is AfD'd only when the article subject is non-notable. Am I wrong on that?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I understand the noms concerns with original analysis. Delete or cite-needed those passages in the article. The nom however gave a delete rationale of OR for the entire article which doesn't make sense. If the game didn't actually happen in the film, I would understand OR, because it would be OR to write an article about something that never happened. Though one could question if the game actually happened since it was on film with a non-existent HAL, but that's an existential concern. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as a notable topic. As the nominator admits, the topic has notability, and per WP:NOTE, "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people)." This means that if there is original research, that is a reason for article cleanup, not article deletion. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The worst of the OR appears to have been removed, suggesting per WP:ATD that it can be improved through regular editing and is not an appropriate candidate for deletion. Likewise, multiple non-trivial (and presumably independent and reliable at that) sources have been added, demonstrating that the topic is sufficiently notable for a standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 05:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ihardlythinkso and Jclemens. Double sharp (talk) 10:48, 10 October 2012 (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.