Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northcott's Nim

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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pawn duel (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 article was titled "Pawn duel" until a few days ago. I mistakenly renamed it to the current title - it is really a special case and slight modification of Northcott's Nim. The reasons for deletion are that the title "Pawn duel" has no secondary reference, no indication of notability, and a previous article about it was speedy deleted (see talk). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Google book search shows Northcott's Nim to be notable per WP:GNG, as it is described in multiple reliable sources (a handful of books). If this is a special case of the game, why not simply clean up the article so that it describes the full general case? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• :: But the article was incorrectly renamed "Northcott's Nim" by me. The article is not about Northcott's Nim, it is about Pawn duel, which is a variation of Northcott's nim that doesn't have any references, no indication of notability, and a previous article with that name was speedy deleted (see the talk page). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it were still named Pawn duel, this would make sense. But it isn't, so we should be discussing whether Northcott's Nim is notable, not whether something else that the article used to be named is notable. That is: AfD discussions are about whether a topic is notable, not about whether a Wikipedia editing history is notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• ::: But the title doesn't match the body of the article. The article is about "pawn duel" - not Northcott's Nim. The title was incorrectly renamed (by me) a few days ago. As an alternative, replace the text of the article with an article about Northcott's nim. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete now that this has been renamed back to Pawn duel. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Recap

1. User Okkay created the article Pawn duel. It was speedy deleted Nov 13, 2009 because of the lack of notability, see User talk:Okkay.
2. The same editor re-created the article on January 9, 2010.
3. I mistakenly thought that it was a special case of Northcott's Nim. It is not.
4. I mistakenly renamed "pawn duel" to "Northcott's nim".
5. Editor Okkay pointed out that the two not the same, and he is right.
6. Nevertheless, the article still describes "pawn duel" instead of "Northcott's nim".
7. I propose that it be deleted because Pawn Duel is not notable, there are no secondary sources for Pawn Duel, and the text does not match the title. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but we now have a title of an article with Northcott's nim in it. Is there any reason not to replace the rest of the article with something that really is about Northcott's nim? Doing that wouldn't require an AfD. The problem with doing it the way you seem to want to (burn it to the ground first, then think about making a new article) is that the AfD gives us a precedent that we should not have an article on Northcott's nim (because that's what the AfD is about). I disagree with making that precedent. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, "As an alternative, replace the text of the article with an article about Northcott's nim." One thing, though, there is already a list of variation of nim at Nim#Other_variations_of_Nim, so it might be better to discuss Northcott's Nim there rather than have a whole article for a minor variation. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also see this discussion. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Nim based on the above. Unless someone wants to write an article on Northcott's Nim. Even if the variation isn't described under Nim, the title and redirect make it clear that it's a variation of Nim. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I've corrected the title; the article is now called pawn duel. If this is deleted, that should not be grounds not to create an article properly titled Northcott's Nim. Should we now speedily deleted the redirect from Northcott's Nim to pawn duel? (And why is the "N" in "Nim" capital?) Michael Hardy (talk) 18:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the redirect should not be deleted, but should go to Nim. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Pawn duel is a chess variation played with only the pawns and the board. The only thing that comes up is Queens Pawn Duel[1] Delete and no reason to redirect Pawn duel since no reliable source mentions pawn duel. The chess variation played with only the pawns and the board describe in the article might be known by another name. But unless someone can identify it, there's no other choice but to delete. Per David Eppstein, redirect Northcott's nim to Nim (it might actually be called Northcott's game[2]. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2012 (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.