- 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Stappenmethode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is no source, and a google search did not bring any significant coverage, appart from a promotional site for this method. The article may have been created for commercial and promotional aims. I do not see why this so-called "chess method" would be notable, by any standard. SyG (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not create the article to promote the product (and I have no affiliation with them), however I partially agree with your point about notability. The reason I created the page was that the method has been generating a reasonable amount of discussion recently and that if the article had remained on the .nl site, then at least that information could be copied over. Thomasdav (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are no sources and this "method" doesn't seem the least bit notable.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2012 (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.