Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tripper (chess)


 * 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 Fairy chess piece. There is unanimous agreement (including the nominator) for redirection and that there is sufficient usage to warrant WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Tripper (chess)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Was prodded two years ago ("adequate sources do not appear to exist") and de-prodded with the rationale "save the stuff here, to wait a bit for Ihardlythinkso's stores of material". Since then, there have been a total of 4 edits to the article, whose value you can judge for yourself. I find no evidence that this has been the subject of discussion or analysis anywhere, ever. JBL (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging to see if he has sources giving significant coverage. I created the article; note that, since the piece is mentioned in Fairy chess piece as one of the basic leapers, it can probably be redirected there if it turns out that notability cannot be demonstrated. Double sharp (talk) 05:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure if we discussed before. If earlier I mentioned "Fiveleaper" and/or "Root-50-Leaper" in this context ("Other Named Leapers", Dickins 1971, p. 11), that w/ be wrong as those pieces have "double-pattern movement". Dickins p. 30 has null entries in his "Named Leapers" table for "3rd-step" orthogonal and diagonal leapers. Also from p. 30, "V—GENERAL · A. THE THEORY OF MOVEMENTS—Leapers, Riders and Hoppers.":"All chessmen in all three categories are derived from one or both of the two basic single-step Leapers, the Wazir (orthogonal) and the Fers (diagonal), which cover between them all three squares of the 'first step' from a1. The Dabbaba (orthogonal), the Alfil (diagonal) and the Knight (angular) cover between them all five squares of the second step. There are not enough named Leapers to cover all the squares of the remaining steps, but wherever a named Leaper does not exist, a numbered one may be used, thus: 0-4 Leaper, 3-5 Leaper, etc, etc." (Italics added by me for emphasis.) So clearly it's 3-3 Leaper per Dickins. There's nothing I know of re it in either two Pritchard encyclopedias. Sorry that's all I have! --IHTS (talk) 06:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * OK then, in the absence of significant mentions with the name in reliable sources, I would favour redirection to Fairy chess piece. (Since the name is in some use online, such as this site predating the Wikipedia article, it strikes me as a plausible search term.) Double sharp (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be fine with me. --JBL (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2019 (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.