Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raptor Chess Interface
- 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 Free Internet Chess Server#Interfaces. I am having a hard time finding substantial content in the article that can easily be merged ("key features" looks more like promotional material), but the article history will remain in case anyone wants view it and consider it for the FICS article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Raptor Chess Interface (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a minor open source game with no reliable sources so unverifiable. No evidence of notability. Prod contested, so brought here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. I find no reviews for this on Google and no indication of meeting WP:N otherwise. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a review: http://chesshive.com/2011/08/raptor-chess-fics-desktop-client-for-mac/ Sorry if my indentation/editing of this talk page is incorrect. MartinMorrison (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do interfaces such as XBoard,Pychess and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eboard_(chess) have Wikipedia pages? How can I give some evidence of notability that gives a level of credence to my Raptor page that the other interfaces have. There seems to be no special 'evidence' for the other interfaces other than a link to their development page/website - which I have given for Raptor. The other interfaces do not have reviews either? MartinMorrison (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources which tell you that reliable sources are "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I don't believe that Chesshive meets this standard as its a blog. As for the other articles, even if they don't meet Wikipedia's standards that does not mean this article is not required to. We treat each article independently. Thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it okay if I flag the other pages for deletion then? MartinMorrison (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've nominated XBoard and EBoard, but Pychess has at least one reliable source. Sparthorse (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair Enough MartinMorrison (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Free Internet Chess Server, which appears to be its only instantiation. Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be a good idea to merge with that page. MartinMorrison (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As the sole author/editor of the article and the editor who contested the PROD, MartinMorrison, accepted the lack of notability and !voted delete, this could/should arguably be a PROD. Salvidrim (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a merge makes more sense now. At least list the difference interfaces and their pros/cons on the Free Internet Chess Server page. MartinMorrison (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge I agree with Jclemens and MartinMorrison.--Kaspo (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Free Internet Chess Server#Interfaces, where it is already mentioned. Since this appears to be the only server that uses this software, this looks a good ___location to merge the limited amount of additional material necessary. Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:49, 9 November 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.