Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pyotr

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 03:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pyotr
Non-notable chess program. The fact that it's Greek and written in Java are uncommon, but the stub is over a year old and although only a two sentences long, it seems to have little possibility of expansion. The provided link seems dead tonight, although google cached it last month. The google cached Pyotr Chess Engine Frequently Asked Questions shows that the FAQ was last updated in December 2001. One highly respected partial list of chess engines provided by Tim Mann includes 176 engines. Although the list is arranged alphabetically and not by importance, Pyotr is number 132 on that list which is probably not too far away from where it ranks in notability. Quale 01:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Concur. No more notable really than an untitled master-level chess player. Sjakkalle 07:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment could this be turned into a disambiguation page? Pyotr is the Russian name for Peter. There is a fair few Pyotrs in history - Pyotr Kapitsa, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Pyotr Kropotkin etc... On second thoughts maybe a redirect to Peter. Megan1967 11:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * A name disambiguation page would be for people/places/things who were commonly known as "Pyotr", not as "Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky" (who is, however, commonly known as Tchaikovsky, highlighting one reason for a difference between name disambiguations for family names and those for given names). Peter is a name disambiguation page because there are people who are commonly known solely by that given name (1 apostle, 1 emperor, and 2 anti-popes, for starters).  The lack of any additions to this page since 2004 indicates that this is probably not the case for "Pyotr". Uncle G 12:17, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thanks for bringing up one of my pet peeves, Uncle G. First name disambiguations are not for "List" articles.  They are for disentangling individuals known only by that name.  There are usually enough medieval figures of any common first name to make this necessary, but Popes are an extreme case.  It's common enough for even a scholar to say, "He was denied by Pope Peter" and not indicate that the reference is to Peter II or later.  They're also not for etymology and variants on a name, as that's all lexicography. Geogre 13:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep master level chess engines are notable. Klonimus 23:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Where do you get the information that it's master level? What's the cite? Quale 00:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Klonimus appears to have inferred more from what Sjakkalle wrote above than strictly can be. Uncle G 15:25, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm kind of curious whether Klonimus ever reads any of the articles he votes on. Quale 20:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I read the article, it's NPOV and verifiable. I have no problem with keeping it. AFAIK the subject is notable. If some wikichess people can demonstrat that its not notable, then delete it. Klonimus 08:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The perhaps you'll answer Quale's question, and tell us how you verified that this is a master level chess engine. Uncle G 09:35, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
 * I echo Uncle G's request. P.S.  Sjakkalle and I are Wikiproject Chess members and we have each created and edited dozens of chess articles.  Quale 18:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Sholtar 00:34, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not verifiable that it's anything good. Radiant_* 13:42, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand, or Redirect into an article on Chess Engines in general. Agree thouroughly with Keep master level chess engines are notable. Klonimus 23:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC).  These are nontrivial intellectual accomplishments. The press coverage in the '70's and '80's when the first such programs were able to play on par with masters and eventually grandmasters was of epic proportions. I'm more inclined to frown at the party suggesting this be deleted -- the entry documents some accomplishment of note, however sparse of text. 'Master Level' in tourneyment chess is a huge intellectual accomplishment on par with hitters averaging 35+ homers a year, QB's averaging 2+ TD passes a game, or (Shudder) music stars with a golden record album. Me thinks the author was succinct and concise and single entries of this type should be not only condoned, but sought out until they can be redirected into a comprehensive and complete article covering all such engines, and their place in history.   Fabartus 22:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * User's first edit was three days after the nomination of this article for VfD. RickK 22:19, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually I don't mind this one voting, I think it is in good faith. However, I would disagree that this program is notable. First, I don't have any information that the program is of master strength. Second, even if it is master level, it is not especially interesting if it is developed in the 1990s or 2000s, because master level computers are quite abundant. Had it been made in the 1970s however, it would have been a pioneering program and notable. Sjakkalle 08:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Pyotr's author was born in 1978 and the program was probably written in 2000-2001. From the description on its home site I suspect its play is rather weak.  I also think Farbartus is voting in good faith, but many people, even good chess players, don't really understand computer chess.  The problem of writing a strong chess playing program has been basically solved for the last 15 years.  This raises the notability bar pretty high for me, and for modern programs only those involved in important matches (as was Deep Blue) or those that are commercially important (as is Fritz) meet it.  (BTW, the Fritz article is poor.)  I agree that most programs simply capable of playing a legal game of chess in the 1970s are notable.  Anyone who thinks that every chess playing program is notable is invited to look at the sea of red links that is List of chess engines.  Most of them are not notable, and often they are tiny modifications of other programs.  Also remember that this is just a partial list of engines.  Anyone trying hard could probably increase the length of that list by 50-100%. Quale 18:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.