Talk:Chess diagram

PROD
The original article is mine, that is, I have written from scratch since the beginning, I have not copied anyone to create this article... Why have to be erased?... I don't understand!. --> (User M3c4n0~enwiki) 12:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read the links in the prod notice. Why is there a need for an encyclopaedia entry for an obvious definition? Wikipedia articles need significant coverage in WP:reliable sources about the subject of the article - in this case you would need to find something that discusses chess diagrams rather than just uses them to illustrate other things. If you cannot show this then it is WP:original research which Wikipedia explicitly does not allow. noq (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I considered deprodding, but upon further reflection it seems like the notable concept is pretty well established at chess problem. I'd suggest redirecting there and recreating this article when there are sources and content sufficient to justify a stand-alone article. I have little doubt it's possible to do so, but as of now it does look to be a dictionary definition that doesn't add much beyond chess problem. Would you object to retaining this article in the article's history but redirecting to chess problem for now? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 19:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that a redirect is appropriate for this. Diagrams are used as illustrations in other contexts to chess problems but as it stands this is just an obvious dictionary definition that does not add anything. noq (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)