Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chess During World War II

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. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Random collection of facts Guinnog 20:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Pretty trivial, yes. Punkmorten 21:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that it could never be anything other than a collection of trivia. Which is why I would argue it should go. Maybe there are bits that could go into the main Chess article or the timeline. --Guinnog 21:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. "Copied by permission"? I'm not sure I believe it (or the process was proper). --ColourBurst 00:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep What is wrong with chess? It is a nice game and the facts in this article are also nice. Daborhe 10:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chess certainly is a nice game. I am not proposing to delete the main article chess. This article seems to be unsalvageable trivia though. It seems to breach policy as well as possibly being a copyright violation, as ColourBurst points out. You're right that some of the trivia are quite interesting; we would lose nothing by deleting this article and adding the link the article is copied from to the main article. What do you think? --Guinnog 11:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Guinnog and add trivia to relevant articles. --Zoz (t) 17:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Lkjhgfdsa 20:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is pure indiscriminate trivia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Worth keeping as part of the history of chess. --JJay 20:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We already have Origins of chess and Timeline of chess (which could both be further developed). Chess played no real part in WW2; would we also want Chess During WW1, Chess During the Vietnam War etc? Plus the copyright question. Sorry, I don't mean to harangue you or to sound sarcastic; I agree we need more on the history of chess, I just don't think this article contributes to it. --Guinnog 20:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as part of chess history as stated above. Orangehead 16:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the listed facts are either not notable or can be found somewhere else. For example, article Alexander Alekhine has a paragraph about his life in WW2. Don't see why a special article is needed to collect these facts. Andreas Kaufmann 20:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The listed facts can be found somewhere eles but I think some people would prefer to look at one article which contains all the information instead of looking through hundreds of articles.--Taida 20:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. What's wrong with random collection of facts and trivia?--Taida 20:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't encyclopedic, at least in this case. There are also copyright issues. --Guinnog 20:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This can be arranged into a timeline or something. Also, there are no copyright issues. At the bottom of the article it says "Original Source: Bill Wall, copied by permission".--Taida 20:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Pretty indiscriminant collection of trivia. Not a big fan of direct copies from Geocities sites either. Wickethewok 15:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no citations to reliable sources. Nor is "by permission" a valid license as far as I know; you can't then release that material under the GFDL. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If info is valid, Wikisource it. it's just formatted, presented poorly. kzz* 06:06, 4 August 2006 (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.