Deletion of List of chess gambits

Comment: Agree that it's not the best it can be — barely any information for a non-expert — but this is absolutely notable.  I don't play chess but having read a single history book a decade ago, I can recognize a number of these.  Clear |selection criteria, blue links for all the headers, and the list as a whole is certainly covered beyond just the individual items; that's a clear keep for a list. ~  Amory
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:CSC)

Comment: Passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: tentatively - Could you explain how it is indiscriminate? Is "gambit" ambiguous in a way I'm unfamiliar with? There are many books specifically about gambits/opening gambits (I had a few when I was a kid, in my desperation to avoid boring openings). That makes me think it's likely this passes . It being unsourced isn't great, but is it controversial that the Blackmar–Diemer Gambit is a gambit? &mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NLIST)