- 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Cubic chess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was created in April 2007. It has been marked as unsourced since August 2007. It is also marked as possible Original Research. There are still no sources and it is not in the main reference of chess variants by David Pritchard, Encyclopedia of Chess Variants (2nd ed.). (added:) It is also essentially an orphan. No mainspace articles link to it except index of chess articles, which links to all chess articles. And it may be WP:MADEUP. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, he's some sources I found on the subject.
- "Chess in Three Dimensions" - The Independent, Volume 64
- Chess, Volume 35
- "Chess Played on Eight Boards" - Technical World Magazine, Volume 9
- What do you think? SilverserenC 02:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Chess in Three Dimensions" reference (Independent, Vol 64) is about Dr. Ferdinand Maack's 8x8x8 chess, which is a completely different game (different rules) than the article's game. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The second has no relation - just the words "cubic" and "chess". The first and third are at least superficially similar. I don't know how similar. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the third ref is vague description, and "Cubic chess" seems to be a generic descriptor not a game name. But it's not the article game. Cubic seems to be someone's creative spin-off of 8x8x8 game (e.g. diagonal movers include triangonal movement - now that is different!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I didn't know there was another game (the 8x8x8 one) that was using the same name. Do we have an article on Maack's version of the game? If not, then we might want to think about turning this article into one about that, since that one seems to be notable. SilverserenC 05:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Three-dimensional chess, and specify which "cubic chess" this is, since there are several with that name. If the Star Trek chess isn't notable enough for a separate article, this doesn't seem to be even close to as notable as that one, or "space chess" of 1907. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since there are no known references for this particular variation of chess, I suspect that it is something that someone made up one day. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if none of the sources are clear enough to support the material, then a simple redirect will do, per the finding of other 3D chesses called "cubic chess". 65.93.15.125 (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since there are no known references for this particular variation of chess, I suspect that it is something that someone made up one day. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No sources are present. Merging does not solve verifiability concerns, it merely moves them to another article. I have not seen any evidence that the game has actually been played. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I applaud User:Ihardlythinkso for finding the article from The Independent. However, this page has all the signs of "creator made it all up". It's not that original an idea-- the rooks would go vertically, the bishops in steady slope up or down, etc. I'm not sure why one would need pawns below pawns, 48 in all, unless there was a sale on them somewhere-- maybe at a pawn shop... Mandsford 20:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:MADEUP. No objection to a redirect as long as it happens after deletion of the current content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Sjakkalle. SyG (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2011 (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.