Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andscacs

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 delete. Keep is not an option. Not just by weight of numbers, but because the sources brought up here are just passing mentions. We're looking for sources which are primarially about the subject (or, at least, devote a serious amount of attention to them). Simply mentioning that something exists isn't enough.

It would be attractive to close this as Redirect to Chess engine (especially as I'm a big fan of WP:ATD) but that article doesn't even mention this program, so the redirect wouldn't make a lot of sense. That specific objection could be solved by adding it to Chess engine, but then why this one specific engine, and not others?

I suspect the best long-term solution would be for somebody to write List of chess engines and then this (and all of the other engines which don't merit their own articles) could redirect to there. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andscacs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This looks like a non-notable nothing to me. However, I acknowledge I know zilch about chess engines. Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: Definitely a notable chess engine, which ranks the seventh strongest at CCRL, other citations are available under the reference section of the article. IQ125 (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only source that might meet the requirements of WP:GNG (and I have my doubts when it comes to the "independent of the subject" requirement – it sounds like a press release rather than original reporting) is ref. 3. Given that "multiple sources are generally expected" by GNG, that's not enough. Noncommercial, closed-source engines without notable competitive results are not notable. Cobblet (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is wrong with ref. 4? Did you even read it? IQ125 (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a wiki, therefore it fails WP:RS because it is user generated content.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is a very reliable website, I trust the information from that website location. IQ125 (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just because you said so doesn't make it so. Please stop reverting other editors' attempts to clean up the article to conform with Wikipedia policies. Cobblet (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Chess engine. This source from January of this year says the three strongest engines are Stockfish 8, Komodo 10.3 and Houdini 5.01, with a "few others worth mentioning beyond these top three" and then lists Andscas as one of "a slew of less heralded entries." Is being the seventh strongest on one of several (reputable) testing groups enough to establish notability? There are no guidelines on notability of chess engines at WP:CHESS as far as I'm aware. This source and the one mentioned above by Cobblet are all I can find that are reliable and I agree with him that this is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. For now I suggest redirecting to Chess engine and the article can be re-created in the future if more sources turn up.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep or Redirect. It's one of the stronger engines around and the material is properly sourced. Within the chess programming world it is probably considered notable. Redirect would be ok too per Pawnkingthree, the material would be preserved and if Andscacs continues to make progress and joins the big 3 we could easily recreate the article. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Bits and pieces can be moved into chess engine. Not notable on its own. South Nashua (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep – Here's another source from December about the Thoresen Chess Engine Championship: TCEC: el otro campeonato del mundo de ajedrez que ningún humano podría ganar - INVDES" (TCEC: the other world chess championship that no human could win). It mentions Andscacs along with 7 other engines: "Today different versions of Komodo, Stockfish and Houdini dominate those qualifications, although contenders like Fire, Jony, Gull, Rybka or Andscacs managed to arrive at the third stage before the superfinal". Mojoworker (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to chess engine. No notability has been established via community vetted reliable sources, though it may be possible to merge some information from the source provided earlier in this AFD. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:57, 3 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.