Deletion of Wayward Queen Attack

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 . At best it deserves a passing mention in the Open Game article - this reflects its relative importance among chess openings
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:NPOV)