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 keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 02:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Wayward Queen Attack (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable chess opening, almost never played by strong players. Opening doesn't even have a generally accepted standard name. MaxBrowne ( talk) 03:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete as nominator. Material for this opening sequence in chess is mostly sourced, but the opening itself is non-notable. It is almost never played by high level chess players; chessgames database shows 21 games with 2.Qh5, compared with over 85,000 for the most common move 2.Nf3. Commonly considered a beginner's opening, or a joke opening. It has no generally accepted name in any standard chess reference work. Delete or merge/redirect with Open Game. MaxBrowne ( talk) 03:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Musa  Talk  03:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep it doesn't need to be a move that the pros would use (ie a good move) in order to be notable. In fact, it appears that it has been used and spoken about by professionals (which would seem to indicate notability), and the article itself does discuss its downfalls. I see no reason to delete the entire article simply because it's not a preferred move.   Discant X 03:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Grandmaster Hikaru Nakamura put the opening on the map by using in serious competition more than once, explaining to fans he used it to create interesting middlegame positions. It's rarely used, but I think his re-theorization of the opening is significant to chess literature and that the opening has notability stemming from that. IHTS ( talk) 04:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - It's a common opening at lower levels, but more importantly it's received sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. In particular, Nakamura's Qh5 generated a lot of press (relatively speaking), e.g. Chess Ninja, Telegraph, Chessbase, and I could've sworn there was something in Chess Life, though I can't be sure and it's not popping up in my search results. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment - That's not to say this is the name the subject should have. No opposition to a move if there's a more common name. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC) reply

The fact that there is no common name for it is one of the major things which suggests to me that the opening is non-notable. We could mention that Nakamura tried it a few times in the Open Game article (in fact he mostly played it in online bullet games to confuse opponents and gain time on the clock). Most standard opening reference works don't even give it a footnote, and to give it an entire article in wikipedia is WP:UNDUE in my view. MaxBrowne ( talk) 04:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep per IHTS actually. Nakamura has since matured his opening repertoire, but it did raise some eyebrows when he played it in 2005 and some theoretical attention was provided for the opening. The sources provided by Rhododendrites are relevant. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment. It's very strange that people insist that this sequence of moves (I refuse to dignify it with the word "opening") is notable enough to deserve its own article, just because some bratty 17 year old played it a few times. Other fringe openings like Grob's Attack at least have a few books written about them - this one has no books written about it, and doesn't even have a footnote in ECO, MCO or any other reputable openings book. Nobody even seems to agree on what it's called. The name "Wayward Queen Attack" apparently stems from the very poorly regarded book Unorthodox Chess Openings by Eric Schiller ("utter crap" according to Tony Miles) and is far from being a mainstream usage. The earliest reference I've found to 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 is in the Dubuque Chess Journal 1875, where it is called the "Kentucky Opening", then in the early 20th century it becomes the "Danvers Opening" (named by Elmer Ernest Southard after the insane asylum where he worked). Then it becomes the Terrorist Attack, Used Car Salesman Attack, Parham Attack etc etc. Giving a sequence of moves which doesn't even have an accepted name its own article is clearly undue weight and a violation of WP:NPOV. At best it deserves a passing mention in the Open Game article - this reflects its relative importance among chess openings. MaxBrowne ( talk) 12:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• @ MaxBrowne: Frankly I would think most, though not all, moves following e.g. e4, d4, c4, e4e5, e4e6, e4c5, e4d6, e4c6, e4nf6, e4nc6, d4d5, d4nf6, d4f5 (maybe a couple others, maybe fewer than this) would've been written about over the years to the extent sufficient to make a case for WP:GNG. It just so happens that this is one that has seen recent coverage, so it's even easier to make that case. As an article, it's also reasonably well developed (considering the state of so many other opening articles). As this is looking to be a pretty clear consensus to keep, maybe a next step would be to explore the idea of putting work into Open Game and eventually merging this content there? Or even an article for uncommon chess openings [for which there are sources]. I'm not so sure if that would make sense, but I wouldn't be opposed to exploring it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Well, I said my piece. Consensus or not, I believe my arguments are stronger and more in line with wikipedia policy. Would be interested to know what non-chessplayers make of this; most of the commenters here are wikiproject chess regulars and possibly biased in favour of keeping. MaxBrowne ( talk) 02:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Re "just because some bratty 17 year old played it a few times". Well at 17 he was a GM, also U.S. Champion. (At 15 Fischer was GM, also U.S. Champion. I suppose Fischer could be called "bratty" then, too. Another parallel: Fischer later played more than once the rare & virtually unknown 1.b3.) There was some consensus re Shiller's book being reasonable source for the article name in prior discussion. Talk:Wayward Queen Attack#Naming; Why is it called the "Parham Attack"? (If that is still consensus, it seems that ref for "Wayward" name s/b included in the article, currently it is not.  Done) IHTS ( talk) 11:09, 13 November 2015 (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.