Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capablanca random 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 Capablanca chess#Postdating Capablanca chess. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Capablanca random chess

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Only one reference, can easily be included as a part of Capablanca chess. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 12:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 12:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Capablanca Chess#Postdating Capablanca chess. Could merge relevant content if necessary but without additional sources the main article covers this variant enough. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
selective merge (probably just once sentence and the cite to the current mention of it) as above. Hobit (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. There's adequate coverage in the target article and not a lot of sourced, unique content to merge, and I can't find enough independent, significant coverage to clearly justify keeping and expanding the current article. ^Complex/_Rational 14:19, 11 October 2022 (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.