Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruy Lopez, Marshall Attack, Rombaua Trap


 * 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez, Marshall Attack, Rombaua Trap

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a hoax. No reliable sources are given, and no rationale is given for the name of this chess trap. No results for "Rombaua Trap" in GBooks; all Google hits are social media sources. The name is not found in general reference books such as The Oxford Companion to Chess. I am also nominating the following redirects for deletion:

Cobblet (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Google books does give two hits for "Rombaua Trap" but unfortunately does not include text: A History of Chess and Basic Chess Endings. A History of Chess is a classic and published in 1913.  The Oxford Companion to Chess also has a hit for Rombaua + chess, which all goes to suggest that this is unlikely to be a hoax. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have the other two books you mentioned (although it is exceedingly unlikely that Fine's Basic Chess Endings would contain information on an opening trap—this is a well-known book and I'm sure somebody could check to make sure), but the 2nd edition of the Oxford Companion definitely does not mention the Rombaua Trap. See p. 343 ("Romantic Attack" is followed by "Romi Opening") or p. 472 (the opening index, where no variations of the Marshall Attack are listed.) Cobblet (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is almost certainly not in Basic Chess Endings. I looked in the The Oxford Companion to Chess and it isn't there.  Marshall Attack has an entry, but there is nothing about this, either under Marshall Attack, its own name,  or in the big list of opening lines in the back.  It also isn't in the index of the History of Chess. Also, History of chess predates the first use of the Marshall Attack in general, so it is almost certainly not in that book. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to say that I appreciate both of you taking the time to look. I wish I still had my copy of a History of Chess to see if a Rombaua appears in there in relation to Ruy Lopez. In any event, I think you've amply demonstrated lack of notability. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * New paperback printings of the History of Chess are available at a reasonable price. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. Appears to be a 'what might happen if the defender plays automatically and fails to find the refutation' scenario. More a casual observation than serious, established opening theory. Brittle heaven (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable at least. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Get rid of it. Unverifiable. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with the nominator on all points. Quale (talk) 06:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete At first glance, this looks like a reasonably made theoretical article on a sideline in a major chess opening. But looking deeper, it is quite telling that the sources don't support the contents. Neither of the two cited games, Tal-Geller] nor Polgar-Nunn feature the ...Bxh2+ sacrifice that the article is about, and so are basically irrelevant. The comments above have made a convincing case for deletion as well. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:25, 8 September 2013 (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.