Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immortal losing game
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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The result was nomination withdrawn. (Closing early as per WP:SK criterion 1.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Immortal losing game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is all original research and annotation. More importantly, I can find no reliable sources that this game, which I do not believe is well-known in chess annals, is actually known as the "Immortal losing game" (there are some Google hits, but they all seem to be Wikipedia mirrors or other non-reliable sources). Kansan (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Chessgames.com calls it that, and it certainly isn't a Wikipedia mirror, see this. I'll look for references. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a good reference and added it to the article. However, it only gives the basic details of the game and the moves, with no analysis. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added an external link to the source of the analysis. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did find some links to discussion on Chessgames.com when looking, but the discussion there essentially like message board content? I would be willing to withdraw this if it's well sourced, but I just want to be able to see that this name is widely held and not just coming from a pun of the day from Chessgames or a comment there or something like that. Kansan (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, any registered user can post on ChessGames, so that isn't a reliable source for commentary (but it is for the other facts). The paper encyclopedia from the 1970s has an entry about the game (and calls it what this article calls it). The French webpage link appears to be a reliable source. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The person giving the analysis on the French website has an international rating over 2200, which would be a national master in the US, so I think he is qualified enough to make the analysis reliable. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did find some links to discussion on Chessgames.com when looking, but the discussion there essentially like message board content? I would be willing to withdraw this if it's well sourced, but I just want to be able to see that this name is widely held and not just coming from a pun of the day from Chessgames or a comment there or something like that. Kansan (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added an external link to the source of the analysis. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - now better sourced. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, per Bubba73's good work, I'm willing to withdraw my nomination. Kansan (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 17 May 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.