Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyber 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 no consensus. Der yck C. 21:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Chess

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

There is no indication of why this software would be notable. SyG (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be a chess game created by someone at home, which was subsequently sold (one of the references is a CV...). Not notable in the slightest. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:35, 8 January 2012 (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) 19:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Individual pieces of software that aren't widely covered are simply non-notable.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found nothing to show notability. Non-notable software. SL93 (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (creator) Both author and product are included on the Chess Programming wiki. Mentioned in article at The Globe and Mail (although admittedly not the actual topic of that piece) and in notes of a PC users' group meeting. Noted in this forum post - yes I know it's not WP:RS. The game received media coverage in related press at the time of its release. It's now almost 20 years old, which explains why there are few online references. This does not mean that further sources (in printed magazines) do not exist. The article was nominated for deletion within a week of its creation: other editors have not had a chance to add further sources yet. I've now tagged it with {{Refimprove}}. -- Trevj (talk) 05:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. -- Trevj (talk) 05:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't establish notability, especially since the # of sources is low and they don't give more than passing mention.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, OK. If I had the printed mags available to me here, I would be able to confirm notability by adding the refs. I do not, but if the article is kept other editors will be able to do so. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 06:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - We can userfy it for you if necessary (move into your userspace), but it can't be in the article namespace right now.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      At risk of sounding POINTy, I thought that AfDs normally remain in main namespace until the end of the discussion period. Anyway, if consensus is for deletion, I don't think userfication will be necessary in this case - but thanks very much for the suggestion, which is appreciated. Depending on the outcome, I'll put in a request at WP:DELETE when further sources are available. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Different games were released under this generic name it seems. A game created before this one by that name was reviewed in the print magazine CREATIVE COMPUTING VOL. 10, NO. 9 / SEPTEMBER 1984 / PAGE 90, archived at [1] But the link in the article [2] shows the guy in question made his game in in 1992/93. Dream Focus 07:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting. The original game under this name should probably be at Cyberchess, with appropriate hatnotes included to disambiguate. -- Trevj (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there'll be a review in Acorn Computing and Acorn User.[3]. -- Trevj (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unremarkable software, I'm not finding sufficient coverage in 3rd party sources to help this meet WP:GNG RadioFan (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources given by Trevj meet the criteria for substantial and reliable coverage. There are a great deal of chess playing programs available, and notability usually comes when the product sells well (e.g. Chessmaster), or performs well in computer tournaments (e.g. Fritz and Houdini). I see no evidence whatsoever that this program has raised any significant interest in the chess literature. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the reasons the editors above gave. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (creator) A couple more references have now been included, which I believe help to demonstrate notability. -- Trevj (talk) 08:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further references have been added. -- Trevj (talk) 11:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This sounds a bit like WP:WHACAMOLE to me. The resources that have now been added to the article establish notability. I agree that magazine reviews and news about the software, such as Acorn User, would stand as even better resources, but can't be cited online due to copyright reasons. I'm prepared to believe such material exists and would accept an issue of such a magazine to be a suitable citation. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Query Trevj, you mention it being covered in magazines, did you actually see coverage of this with your own eyes back in the day? In Acorn Computing or Acorn User? Someone another 16:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Unfortunately I can't recall whether whether or not I've actually seen coverage myself in those mags or not. I should still have copies of Acorn Computing at my parents', so hope to research this before the summer. -- Trevj (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying. Someone another 18:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unremarkable game, lacking sufficient coverage in independent sources so fails our inclusion criteria for it's own article. Mt king ^(edits) 03:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The refs from Archive (magazine)([4]) and RISC World amount to significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. (I don't have that copy of Archive, but the software is listed with reviews of other products in that issue - so will be a standalone article.) -- Trevj (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so there's no reason such articles should be excluded for being "unremarkable" per !votes from RadioFan and Mtking above. The article as it stands meets WP:GNG, although I accept that it's desirable to improve it by adding additional refs. Such refs cannot easily be added by inexperienced editors if the article is deleted, userfied or incubated. (Experienced editors could of course state their source(s) at WP:UNDELETE, but that's not an ideal situation for newcomers.) -- Trevj (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am the author of the software being discussed and have no opinion on whether the article should be deleted or kept. However, I can confirm (a) the product was unremarkable from a chess strength point-of-view: there were stronger engines then and there are much stronger engines now. (b) sales were strong but not remarkable for an Acorn product. (c) the product was extensively written about in all the Acorn press at the time: The Fourth Dimension were one of the major games publishers for the Archimedes and this was a big release for them. Two articles in retail magazines I've found are 'Cyber Chess...the mating game' by Raj Sinha, Acorn Computing, October 1992, p63 "Cyber Chess is the best game of chess on the Archimedes" and 'Cyber Chess' by Jonathan Evans, Archimedes World, October 1992, p76 "Cyber Chess is being promoted as 'The definitive chess-playing program' for Acorn... a grand claim indeed but the program goes a long way towards fulfilling it". It was certainly reviewed in Acorn User too though I can't immediately locate the article (twenty years have gone by) (c) I believe the product was the only natively-written Archimedes chess software - all the other Archimedes chess programs I can think of were ports from other platforms (d) the software did include some innovation in various parts including the tuning of the evaluation function with a genetic algorithm. This work was written up in a peer reviewed journal: Tunstall-Pedoe, W. (1991). Genetic Algorithms Optimising Evaluation Functions. ICCA Journal, Vol 14, No. 3, pp. 119-128. I hope this information is useful in getting to a consensus. Tadpole (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for taking the time to share your knowledge here. These references have now been added to the article. -- Trevj (talk) 10:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The annoying thing with retrogame articles is the knowledge that relevant sourcing almost certainly exists for full-price titles and many types of budget games, but finding it is another matter. What's currently in the article is weak sourcing, the Risc World piece is very short and the index of the relevant Archive magazine shows that Cyber Chase was on page 3 with 10 other pieces of software, meaning it cannot be a large or full-size review. However since the author has kindly highlighted three additional magazine sources above then the sourcing must surely demonstrate notability, it's just that we don't have access to them. Someone another 18:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I recently had the same problem as above saving Matt Bielby from deletion, where a lot of reliable sources were 15 - 20 year old magazine articles. I was fortunate to find some of them had been scanned and archived, but if they hadn't, I'd have had a bigger fight as I wouldn't have been able to easily prove the article's content. Without wishing to have a pop at anybody, contributors in the US can sometimes feel a bit trigger happy on the delete votes when people elsewhere will remember potential reliable sources from years ago but not have them instantly to hand. --Ritchie333 (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's US-centric disregard for the UK game industry, rather than a site-wide issue with WP not recognizing that many non-core topics are more supported by magazines than 'scholarly sources'. That said, those not familiar with the game industry may not realize that until 2006 the UK was the third largest producer of video games in the world behind the US and Japan, it's still 4th now behind Canada. Before teh internets happened the UK game industry was a self-contained eco system with countless developers, publishers, games and magazines. As the mobile, social and indie gaming scenes continue to grow a lot more UK produced games are going to suddenly start appearing as we return to bedroom programming and small teams which is where the UK's developers flourished.

What really creates the problem, though, is WP's herd of elephants in the room when it comes to marking down the location of sources and assessing them. Sources are our bricks, policies and guidelines are our mortar, but whereas we've got WP:UPTHEASSDEARGODIDONTREMEMBEREATINGTHAT in spades, we don't have site-wide recognized reputable sources lists or any real focus on tracking down where all the sources are. The video game project has a list of sources, but often when it's cited editors say "well that's just their opinion". How the hell are we supposed to retain editors who do the work if we can't even provide them with basic lists of sources. Bah. Someone another 16:57, 25 January 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.