Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toledo Nanochess


 * 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 redirect to International Obfuscated C Code Contest. So, it's clear that as a community we're pretty reluctant to delete this article. It's an interesting subject for a number of our technical contributors (who have described their interest in creative ways ), and it has a small amount of coverage for claiming to be the world's smallest chess program written in the C programming language. However, even those who think the article should be kept concede that the topic admittedly doesn't have the level of mainstream coverage we typically expect for encyclopedic notability (at least one participant argues that we should ideally set aside our usual rules in order to keep the article).

The attention then turns to other alternatives for deletion besides keeping, such as merging or redirecting to a broad concept article. Multiple participants have suggested the article International Obfuscated C Code Contest as a potential redirect target. Accordingly, I see this as the best possible outcome of this discussion. Additionally, nothing in this discussion should prohibit any editor from merging the article's content into another article at editorial discretion. I believe this is the compromise solution that has consensus. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 22:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Toledo Nanochess

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Tagged this for PROD a few years ago and came across it again today. Fails WP:PRODUCT/WP:GNG. It won an award, but closer inspection shows that ward to be one category of the "International Obfuscated C Code Contest," which has nothing to do with chess and is not the kind of award that provides any indication of notability as far as I can tell (an award is an indicator of notability when it means the subject would have received significant coverage in reliable sources). I'm seeing only primary sources, self-published sources, brief mentions, etc. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 20:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 20:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 20:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment – FWIW, the program was discussed in the ICGA Journal, vol. 32, no. 1 (March 2009, & ). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 18:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * weak keep Can't see the ICGA corrispondence, and sources seem weak. But A) this is very very cool and B) I can see no harm (not a likely spam magnet, no BLP problems, etc.) and seems like something we should have. This is probably an IAR !vote... Hobit (talk) 07:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC) class NotVote { NotVote { this.vote = WP:IAR ? WEAK_KEEP : redirect(International Obfuscated C Code Contest); this.per = ; }   char* sign { return("-- RoySmith (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)"); } }
 * If I weren't busily getting ready for class, fighting with OpenCV, Raspberry Pis, Xbees, and Python libraries I'd write something cute in response. As it is I'll just say "that was fun, thanks!"  Hobit (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 17:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 17:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Ritchie333 (talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

0000000 8b1f 0808 7d20 5b8d 0302 6574 7473 742e 0000010 7478 2500 418f 0212 0c21 ef04 62bc a01e 0000020 c1fe a58b 88cf 564b 6ca2 4142 cb70 0bdf 0000030 4e7a cf4f 8ce4 bda7 d218 8840 4ad2 0fa6 0000040 456c 9bea 0af5 ec51 9649 dd84 1c6a 6548 0000050 c6f4 bb11 1a78 4237 bc2b 2ac8 480b d863 0000060 e739 e463 7455 4a20 92b5 9bcb bcd1 c5f6 0000070 c8fb 61ba d1a3 d856 664a ea64 348f b393 0000080 cd5e 31b1 4fa9 ceea 07c1 68a8 c55c cb7a 0000090 539f 9708 3de1 05fc b4db 415a d134 1cc7 00000a0 faf7 fe69 15eb 189e 7537 caae 7e3e ce68 00000b0 4f14 e108 776a 10f1 36be fb34 f4ba 0000 00000c0 0000 00000c1


 * Comment - What the heck happened here? This devovled into....I don't know what after the relist. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah. You're right. I didn't put clear after my message above, so Hobit's message was difficult to read. Fixed now. :) &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 22:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And, I've fixed my syntax error. It should make a lot more sense now.   -- RoySmith (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, mine is almost impossible to reverse I think. Hobit (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a rather cryptic remark. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I admit I'm not sure what to do with it. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 05:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Got it. Cute.  You can go back to playing on the Internet now.  -- RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, that's impressive. I don't know that I could recover that without a lot of work, and I know what was done.  (should have used xxd rather than hexdump...) Hobit (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It was obvious from the format this this was "od" output. A few lines of python to regenerate the original byte sequence (and some experimentation to get the end-ness right).  Once it became apparent it wasn't plain text, the unix "file" utility correctly guessed what it was.  -- RoySmith (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nicely done. Hobit (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per 6665331f0da545459c47ee04a93321290b44ee09 Platonides (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sorry, couldn't resist :) Enterprisey (talk!) 05:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide the output the above program produces when executed in your private context? Thanks.  -- RoySmith (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, never mind. I see it below.  -- RoySmith (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Redirect to the IOCCC article, due to the chessbase and ICGA articles insufficient independent sources to write that much verifiable content. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC); amended Enterprisey (talk!) 19:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have no idea what's happening anymore. what chessbase article? Do you mean this? A single sentence in a chessbase blog post listing some small chess engines, which is in turn sourced to (or at least links to) this Wikipedia article? I'd like to reiterate just how thoroughly this subject fails WP:GNG. The only sources even mentioned so far are a single sentence (doesn't get much more "brief mention" than that) and an article written by the software developer... &mdash;  Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 16:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Though that article by the developer was published in an academic journal. So that's something (but yeah, IAR is really the only way to be keeping this...) Hobit (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hobit. If this ever was the world's smallest chess engine in a language like C, it is certainly notable. And it has coverage in Chessbase and IGCA Journal. An alternative (ATD) might be this: move to Smallest chess engine (Q: should this be "shortest" or "program"?) and rework. The article already includes other small chess engines, and this topic certainly has coverage: eg . James500 (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I could certainly get behind a merge to a broader article covering small chess engines, which doesn't seem to exist yet. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep  --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK  ( 後  ☕  桜 ) 15:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In lieu of DRV, I agree with the fact that IGCA journal and Chessbase articles render the topic notable enough. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( 後  ☕  桜 ) 17:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That all of the keeps are based on non-policy reasons, a single sentence in the chessbase blog, and material from the developer in the "correspondence" section of a non-notable journal, combined with consensus being based on the strength of arguments rather than a vote count, is why this will almost certainly be going to DRV on principle if nothing else :P &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 17:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Well this is going to be make for a confusing, and seemingly inevitable, DRV... &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 15:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Consensus seems to lean towards keep.   w umbolo   ^^^  15:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Draftify pending a valid merge target per an inability to find reasonable secondary sources that demosntrate notability. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 18:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A redirect to International Obfuscated C Code Contest is also acceptable for me. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 19:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to International Obfuscated C Code Contest or merge to a broader article. Beep boop beep. Sorry, I don't know computeriness. Natureium (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW I support a Redirect as above, as an alternative to deletion. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 18:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect as suggested above. I'm not at all convinced the subject is notable. w umbolo   ^^^  19:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.