Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huygens (chess piece)

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 Fairy chess pieces#Notable examples. The arguments for notability aren't convincing, unlike the arguments that the sourcing is inadequate to demonstrate notability. Since there is a plausible redirect target, I've decided to redirect rather than delete outright. ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 00:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huygens (chess piece)

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

The article is about a "fairy chess piece" used by some players in variant chess games. For this particular piece, the name is a recent neologism, and evidence of its use and notability is limited to a couple of forum discussion threads. I believe that no proper secondary sources exist, but even if they do notability seems extremely doubtful. JBL (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did a google search of the Huygens (as a chess piece) and found significantly more material showing notability than there is for several other chess pieces that have their own article. I'll make a brief summary tomorrow to show what can be found easily (and maybe a proposal to create a uniform guideline so that all chess pieces can be judged in the same way). Thanks for now.—LithiumFlash (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I left some comments at the Talk page of the huygens: Talk:Huygens (chess piece)—LithiumFlash (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, you extract WP:RSs from this?? On what planet? --IHTS (talk) 07:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LithiumFlash made an WP:OTHERSTUFF-type comment, and I had volunteered to consider proposing other fairy chess piece articles for deletion. I do not think the comment there is an attempt to establish the existence of reliable sources for this article. --JBL (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be a recent invention which hasn't been taken up by much of anyone else significant. The other fairy chess piece articles JBL has tagged have more of a real existence in the fairy chess literature (which alas has a very spotty presence on the internet; Ihardlythinkso probably has more access to it, so I've asked him). Double sharp (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did a quick survey concerning the huygens chess piece, and some other chess pieces that have their own pages on Wikipedia (as a comparison or reference). Here is a quick summary:

Camel (chess) (article is a stub)

YouTube video "DIY Variant Chess pieces" (2012)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1IGx6KLMPU

Mentioned at chess.com: "If chess had a new piece it would be the camel"

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/if-chess-had-a-new-piece

(Nothing else found)

Centaur (chess) - appears to be a new article (4/5)

listed in Piececlopedia: (N+K)

http://www.chessvariants.com/piececlopedia.dir/centaur.html

(Nothing else found)

Giraffe (chess):

listed in Piececlopedia:

http://www.chessvariants.com/piececlopedia.dir/giraffe.html

listed in Mayhematics: "Giraffe is {1,4} leaper. Zurafa"

https://www.mayhematics.com/v/gm.htm

Pinterest - (2 drawings of a giraffe chess piece):

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/292734044507697828/

(Nothing else found)

Kirin (chess) (article is a stub):

A piece with the same move is listed here, but is called "FD" (does not say Kirin)

http://www.chessvariants.com/d.betza/chessvar/pieces/fd.html

The kirin and more than 200 similar pieces are used in Shogi (a Japanese game similar to chess) and some of its variants. So if the kirin is notable then so are the 200 other pieces.

(Nothing else found)

Phoenix (chess) (article is a stub):

A piece with the same move is listed here, but is called "WA" (does not say Phoenix)

http://www.chessvariants.com/d.betza/chessvar/pieces/wa.html

The Phoenix (hōō) and more than 200 similar pieces are used in Shogi (a Japanese game similar to chess) and some of its variants. (In Japan it is not called the Phoenix). If the Phoenix is notable then so are the 200 other pieces.

(Nothing else found)

Threeleaper (this article is a stub).

(Nothing found)

Tripper (chess) (this article is a stub):

This is a piece that jumps (3,3) and Tripper is a generic name. (found in tables for example).

I only saw it mentioned in a book "Chess variants, Editor: By Wikipedians" so I believe it is a mirror of Wikipedia information (not an independent resource).

(Nothing else found)

Zebra (chess):

listed in the CVP Piececlopedia:

http://www.chessvariants.com/piececlopedia.dir/zebra.html

I found it also proposed as a chess piece, but with a move that doesn't match the Wikipedia article (1/2014):

https://blinchiki.wordpress.com/2014/01/27/new-chess-piece-the-zebra/

(Nothing else found)

Huygens (chess piece):

At the CVP website as a defined piece:

http://www.chessvariants.com/invention/trappist-1

used in games at chess.com, and discussed on matters such as its point value (for example):

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess960-chess-variants/chess-on-an-infinite-plane-huygens-option

Shown in some type of art showing a chess piece in outer space:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/147202588@N02/33215445815

Other art with the huygens (comparing to a camel?):

https://www.flickr.com/photos/147202588@N02/32468003134/in/photostream/

My suggestion is either (KEEP ALL), or (Delete the kirin and phoenix, but keep all others). The kirin and phoenix are by far the least most-noatable, and seem only to be transpositions of game pieces used in Chu shogi and other Shogi-type games, of which no single piece may have enough significance to merit its own page for a Wikipedia article.

The subject in question is gamepieces. These articles would probably be classified as articles of low importance (irrespective of notability). Reasonable people can have widely different opinions on the notability of the class of articles as a whole, or on the individual articles. But if we don't get it exactly right, the impact to Wikipedia's purpose will be minimal.

Understanding that Wikipedia's purpose is indeed to "be the largest, most comprehensive, and most widely-available encyclopedia ever written," it is my opinion that the article for the huygens chess piece in particular, and all the chess pieces in the list above remain is individual page articles in Wikipedia.—LithiumFlash (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)—LithiumFlash (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The trappist-1 game (article) added to CVP 28 Feb 2017 by V. Reinhart (chess enthusiast) incorporating huygens fairy piece, doesn't meet WP:Notability requirement for stand-alone article. The chess.com and flickr online finds are not WP:RSs. --IHTS (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. The camel, zebra, and giraffe are all classic fairy pieces w/ rich histories in fairy literatures. I'll comment re the others elsewhere. --IHTS (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fairy chess pieces#Notable examples where it is already listed.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The citations listed above show the Huygens chess piece is notable. Also a review of all variant chess piece articles easily confirms that the Huygens is right in the middle of the scale of notability (with pieces such as the Kirin and Phoenix being the least notable, and the Mann the most notable).

In this evaluation, we need to remember that notabity is distinct from history. Some chess pieces do have a longer history, whereas the Huygens was introduced more recently. The citations (listed above) show that the Huygens is specified in games, it is used by games players, it is discussed by mathemeticians, and it is mentioned and used by others (artists and so forth).

Some newer usages from the math community also include (in addition to those listed above):

http://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/73850

http://jdh.hamkins.org/a-position-in-infinite-chess-with-game-value-omega-to-the-4/

—LithiumFlash (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. to the general article. I do not see the point of articles on those without either historical significance or really widespread use--they are otherwise best explained in a combination article. According to WP:N, that's a good course of action in such pieces, whether or not they technically meet the GNG. DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 25 April 2017 (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.