Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingston Defence

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. J04n(talk page) 16:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kingston Defence

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. There is a 60-page self-published book on it, which is not available. None of the standard chess opening books list it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You say "none of the standard chess opening books list it", but it is listed as opening C01 in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings as the very first variant of the French Defence. Besides, even a quick look finds lots of discussions and sources on this opening. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 00:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? What edition of ECO Vol C are you referring to? (I have editions 1, 2, and 3, and it isn't in any of them.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Striking. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 21:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ECO is a complete categorization of every possible chess opening, and many of them are not notable enough for a stand alone article. If they all were, then Category:chess openings would include over a thousand pages instead of the more manageable number it has now. (The Oxford Companion to Chess has a very incomplete list of named opening variations that runs to 1292 entries. Notably the "Kingston Defence" is not included.) If there was anything of value to say about these moves it could go in French Defence. In fact there isn't, as the standard encyclopedic works on the French Defense don't cover the line because it has no practical significance. The chess wikiproject has a good understanding of the subject area and strong consensus has developed there that it does not warrant a standalone article. (See WT:CHESS#Kingston Defence.) The sources given by the article are a short self-published book by an author unknown in the world chess and his blog. (Perhaps not surprising, no one in the chess project seems to have the book, and collectively we have well over a thousand chess books.) If the statements in the article that aren't reliably sourced were removed, there wouldn't be anything left. The article subject fails WP:GNG—it lacks multiple sources demonstrating its notability. The few unreliable sources used are WP:SELFPUB by someone not recognized as an expert in the field (in fact unknown to the chess world) and aren't independent of the subject as it seems likely that the author coined the name "Kingston" for the line. Quale (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable variation of the French Defence and the sixty-page tome demonstrates notability. I believe this opening is featured in Erich Schiller's Unorthodox Chess Openings (1998), which is one of the most influential and respected works in chess literature in the last fifty years. Lampenstein (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to discussion at WT:CHESS#Kingston Defence, it is not in either of Schiller's books on unorthodox openings. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the opening moves are in the index, but listed as "Franco-Hiva Gambit (Von Geet Opening)". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There we go, that shows notableness. Why don't we just rename the article "Franco-Hiva Gambit" and call off this deletion thing? Is that an acceptable compromise for everyone? Lampenstein (talk) 03:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The table of contents of the newer edition of Schiller's book shows one page of coverage, on page 180. And according to the article, the Frnco-Hiva is more restricted. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, think about it. Even one page of coverage in the Schiller book is still more coverage than was originally thought earlier today. Why don't we edit the article to reflect what's been documented concerning the Franco-Hiva Gambit, rename the article accordingly, and be done with this? Good compromise? See my side of this? Lampenstein (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked several major books (with more to check) and it isn't in any of the ones I've checked. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Sup, but you said it was in the Schiller UCO book, sup? Lampenstein (talk) 04:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

The Franco-Hiva Gambit is in Schiller's book, but it is the more specific 1.e4 e6 2.d4 f5 3.exf5 Nf6?! 4.fxe6 Bd6?! (according to the article). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A 60-page self-published book by a someone unknown to the chess world is not a "tome" (def.: "a large or scholarly book") and does not demonstrate notability. WP:GNG requires multiple sources with non-trivial coverage. With vanishingly few exceptions, notable chess openings will be included in the major encyclopedic works on the chess opening, including MCO, NCO, and BCO. (NCO and BCO are quite old now, but there's no evidence that the "Kingston Defence" is any more significant today than it was in the past.) The "Franco-Hiva Gambit" does not warrant a stand-alone article either. Mention in Schiller's book barely counts as as a single reliable source given that Schiller invented names for many of the lines and the book itself does not have a good reputation. Note also that Schiller does not devote a page to the line, but rather covers at least three lines on that single page, so it gets a third of a page or less in his book, which is trivial coverage in my opinion. The argument that "Schiller mentions it, so it's notable" is very poor too. Since the book cover says it includes 1200 openings, that argument would support creation of 1200 bad articles on mostly insignificant openings, based solely on a book not taken seriously by most of the chess world. Quale (talk) 07:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have Schiller's Unorthodox Chess Openings (1998), and it is not in there in any form. (If I'm mistaken, can someone give me a page number?) Also, Schiller's book got some bad reviews, including the review "Utter crap" by Tony Miles, whom Schiller praised as "great English Grandmaster", "one of the greatest players in British history", and "to my mind he has the best attitude toward unusual openings [...]". So what's with all the hyperbolic nonsense here? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If we're speaking about Schiller's 1998 edition, can someone please give me a page number? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Bubba73 and Quale argument when they point out that the opening is not covered in any of the comprehensive opening encyclopedias such as ECO. The "C01" code arises out of 1.e4 e6 2.d4, not 2...f5. ECO covers a fair share of relatively obscure lines with a line of analysis or at least a footnote, so lack of coverage there is quite telling. I will also add that the move appears to be very seldomly played, the 365chess database list only 23 games [1] (40 games if we include the transposition via the Staunton Gambit: 1.d4 f5 2.e4 e6), and while the earliest entry there is a game by Mikhail Chigorin, a single use by a top player is not sufficient basis for an article. The sources are self-published and the analysis seems to be done by amateurs, thus there is a reliability problem. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So it is this opening in the Schiller book or not, and what page number is it on? And I disagree with the Dan Quayle guy above, everything that Schiller mentions in notable. He's almost like the Jesus Christ of the modern chess circuit, with his writings akin to holy scriptures. User:Lampenstein ^{Do some meth!} 16:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's not in the 1998 1st ed. that I have, but in the 2nd ed., which Quale has already described. Nice to see u again, OGB. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to briefly view that page of Schiller's book on Amazon. It has only one paragraph about the Franco-Hiva gambit. No analysis and I don't think there was any evaluation. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see it (p. 180). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Belongs as a footnote to the French using name "Franco-Hiva". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wasn't able to find this referred to in any authoritative text on chess openings. Neither have I heard mention of it while playing competitive tournament chess or reading chess magazines over the last 35 years, despite that being its supposed period of resurgence. I must therefore conclude that it is not notable. Brittle heaven (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the same reasons identified above. Kabirat (talk) 09:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable; sole source is self-published. Miniapolis 15:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.