Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lepanto opening

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 to delete. The option of a merge/redirect to Diplomacy (game) was not sufficiently explored in this discussion, and perhaps it should have been. I would encourage exploring the idea on the article's talk page. NAC—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Lepanto opening[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. While there is (brief) coverage of the opening it is not enough, particularly since those sources available fail the test of being third-party, reliable and independent. Of the sources I can find one was written in an unreliable 'zine by the inventor of the opening and the rest are similarly unreliable (player zines that aren't just written by amateurs but, as player magazines, don't really work as evidence of notability). Ironholds (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added a few more sources, including a mainstream published book, and articles from Wizards of the Coast, manufacturers of the game. David^(Talk) 20:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"manufacturers of the game", yes. Hardly third-party and independent. Ironholds (talk) 08:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to violate WP:NOTHOWTO, as it's instructional material for playing a game. It's possible for an encyclopedic article to be written on a specific game strategy, but this isn't it. Powers ^T 20:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we generally keep notable openings/strategies around. [1] lists a 100 or so for chess, and [2] shows a dozen or so bidding conventions for bridge. I don't think diplomacy is in the same league as chess or bridge, but I also don't think this is any more a HOWTO than they are. And yes, I know about OTHERSTUFF. I just think this shows that we have a wide agreement that this type of article isn't in violation of NOTHOWTO. Rather it is documenting a notable thing, not teaching people how to do something. Hobit (talk) 05:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I noted, it's possible for an encyclopedic article to be written on a specific game strategy. Your examples merely illustrate that point. My main point, however, is that this article is not encyclopedic; it is instructional. A good article on a chess opening would include things like how the opening was developed, which notable players favor it, and in what notable games it was used. This article has none of that. Powers ^T 14:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~weak keep~~ although I believe that merging to a diplomacy openings or strategy would be a good idea at some point. The WotC articles are qualify as reliable and independent. Coverage is more than in-passing but not "in depth". The book appears to be self-published so probably not reliable though it has many more details.. The other two sources are of questionable notability IMO. Even assuming WP:N is met (and I think it is) it seems like a poor topic to have a stand alone article on. But it really should be merged somewhere. If no good target exists, I'd suggest this be renamed to an article on Diplomacy strategies. Disclaimer: I've played this game a few times. note, changed to neutral, didn't notice that WotC now sells the game so those WotC sources aren't independent. Hobit (talk) 05:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A classic strategy game of enduring popularity deserves a few articles of interest only to players. The Lepanto may have been the first named opening in Diplomacy (see here), dating from 1971. Googling "Lepanto opening diplomacy" gets you 31K ghits, a fair number. I say keep it. Brianyoumans (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Sharp's book was published in print before being moved to the web, and at least some of the player zines have consistently high quality and serious editor review, making them WP:RS. As for whether they are independent, insofar as there is no monetary stake in the game (such as, say, for employees of Hasbro), so I would say they are in the Wikipedia sense. This support is weak because, well, I am as capable of being swayed by strong emotion as anybody, and I was most strongly delighted at encountering so old and familiar a friend in so unexpected a place. Ray^Talk 15:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But even if the sources are reliable and independent, is there anything to say about the opening besides how it's done? Powers ^T 16:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I remember reading a detailed discussion, once upon a time (long before I started here on Wikipedia), complete with statistics and commentary, about its effect on the mid-to-late game, probability of success given various parameters, etc. So yes, I think the article has the potential for expansion. Ray^Talk 19:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, but I will have to continue to recommend deletion until such a source can be presented. Powers ^T 15:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:30, 20 October 2009 (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.