Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ChessV

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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ChessV

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

Unverified for over two years. I haven't been able to find any reliable, independent sources. Marasmusine (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete due to lack of reliable secondary sources. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 21:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Weak Delete. Could be kept if there were some independent sources. I wish the software was better known and in a later version (not yet 1.0). Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 03:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is notable, though I agree that it requires some secondary sources. Grand Mattster 16:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible secondary sources (correct me if I'm wrong): [1] | [2] | [3] Grand Mattster 16:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)][reply]

The first is a wikipedia mirror I believe, so no love there. The second seems to be in a (specialized) WP:RS. One more reliable source and I'd !vote to keep. Hobit (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral – It certainly looks like an article we should keep but such a long time without much in the way of sources, which seem to be difficult to find. I agree 1 or 2 more reliable sources and it is a definite keep. Is there another article we could merge it with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wintonian (talk • contribs) 01:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources given only mention it in relation to the "2004 Gothic Chess Computer World Championship". If we were to include ChessV in our encyclopedia anywhere, it would be in an article on that championship. Marasmusine (talk) 10:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral/weak keep I think this is an interesting article, definitely needs better sources though DRosin (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2010 (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.