Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alekhine's defense, Modern variation, 4...Bg4


 * 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. There was no consensus on the merge as not enough people commented on it, or its specifics, so if anyone still wishes to merge, feel free to nominate the articles involved in this AfD at your own discretion. --Deskana (fry that thing!)  21:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Alekhine's defense, Modern variation, 4...Bg4

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I am nominating this page, and several others with it because they are little more than short guides to the game with barely any notability beyond some chess grandmaster playing it. I am not nominating the entirety of the Category:Chess openings (Or the subcategory for ECO openings) at this time, but I do think some action is needed on this subject and I have been concerned about it for a while. FrozenPurpleCube 20:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Additional pages nominated:




 * Keep Danish Gambit at least, since it seems to have notability as it references an entire book about it (and the German page lists one in German, by a different author, implying multiple independent sources exist). Not sure about others. Perhaps some that are variations can be merged into the parent opening articles. Rigadoun (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the existence of the book has contributed effectively to the article. Is there anybody who owns a copy and can relate its contents to the rest of us?  FrozenPurpleCube 21:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I also feel obliged to note that my nomination is not disputing that these articles could be referenced, but rather that their content as such is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, since they are effectively guides to certain playstyles which are in violation of WP:NOT criteria 4. The usage by certain grandmasters or history is minimal in comparison to the space devoted to covering the opening itself.  FrozenPurpleCube 00:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Danish Gambit and Ruy Lopez, Marshall Counterattack. The Danish Gambit is a (fairly) major chess opening, often treated separately in opening references.  The Danish Gambit article has been in good shape since 2005, including references and a history of the opening.  The Marshall Attack is a very important variation of one of the Ruy Lopez, one of the most important chess openings.  The Marshall Attack has an interesting history as recounted briefly in Ruy Lopez.  Since this could be expanded fairly substantially and the Ruy Lopez article is already rather long, Ruy Lopez, Marshall Counterattack should be kept. I don't really care about the others (merge might be appropriate). Quale 01:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So, what's worth keeping about these two articles? Most of Danish Gambit is lengthy description of the opening, the bit about the history is minimal.  It could be merged into a page describing notable chess openings with minimal trouble.  Ruy Lopez, Marshall Counterattack is not much better.  What could be added to it at all?  What could be added to any of these chess openings even?  Though I can accept that the opening may be notable, the article on Ruy Lopez is mostly recounting variations after variations, and that's with about a dozen other pages on variants for it.  And most of them don't do anything but describe a series of moves.  Possibly valuable if you're writing about chess, but how important is all of that for Wikipedia?  Are they really desirable?  FrozenPurpleCube 03:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Marshall Attack is a very important variation of the Ruy Lopez. But I think it is telling that the current coverage of it in the main Ruy Lopez article is better than the coverage in the individual article we have on the opening variation. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * FrozenPurpleCube, it's clear that you don't like articles on chess openings, but it isn't clear that there's really any point in trying to discuss it with you. I don't think that your ideas about which topics are encyclopedic or which articles are too technical have much in common with the consensus views on Wikipedia.  This AFD discussion will provide you an opportunity to see how much community support your views have. Quale 15:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, just so you know, WP:NOT does say "Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes." and I think it's pretty obvious that most, if not all of the pages in the category for Chess openings do constitute how-tos. Given that, and the fact that after months of inaction, nothing was done or changed about these pages, I decided seeking a wider consensus through AfD was desirable.  I neither like nor dislike the chess openings, I think they are difficult to understand and may be inappropriate for Wikipedia, but that is not a question of animosity.  Your hostile attitude is not conducive to communication or development of consensus though.  You have effectively just said "I'm not going to bother trying to convince you" .  I suggest you review WP:NPA, and remember to comment on content, not the contributor.  FrozenPurpleCube 16:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for demonstrating my point perfectly. I quite well aware of what WP:NOT says.  The problem is that you don't seem to understand what WP:NOT means.  Far below you say in response to yet another person who disagrees with you, "To get my support for the article ...".   To be honest, I don't care to get your support for any chess articles, since winning your approval would make the articles worse (or go away completely) and would make Wikipedia as a whole worse too.  The only thing of importance to me is what the Wikipedia community supports.  So far this AFD seems to demonstrate a total rejection of your views by the Wikipedia community.    Quale 03:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, I feel obliged to remind you of the WP:NPA policy. Your comments are addressed to me, and not the subject at hand.  This is inappropriate, and uncivil.  Please stick to the subject at hand, and refrain from comments about me.  It does not contribute to the development of consensus at all.  FrozenPurpleCube 03:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Every editor on Wikipedia is entitled to express their own opinions and expects it to be respected. Asserting "I don't care to get your support" because it "would make Wikipedia as a whole worse" is extremely rude and violates WP:NPA policy. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 04:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you're worried about developing consensus. Based on the comments made to date on this AFD I'd say consensus is already clear.  By basing his arguments on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, Manticore made this about himself.  And to AQu01rius I would point out that if Manticore is free to express his opinions, then I should have that same freedom too.  It's clear that Manticore feels strongly about this—he's responded to nearly every comment on this AFD, repeatedly rehashing the same arguments that seem to be nearly universally rejected.  I expect him to respond to this comment too.  That's fine, and I encourage it, but I really don't think I would do anyone any favors by continuing to engage Manticore in the war of attrition he seems anxious to wage.  Manticore can have the next to last word.  AFD participants and the Wikipedia community will have the last word, and we'll move on from there.  Quale 06:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, once again, my argument is not based on whether or not I like the pages, but upon the concept of indiscrminate info. This is at WP:NOT and the specific problem is that these pages are instruction manuals.  I do not know why you fail to understand my position, but I have done my best to explain the difference.  In any case, I am unconvinced that the consensus is clear.  I don't see any of the arguments to keep these pages as addressing my primary concern that these are simply instructions, and several of the remarks have indicated support for deletion of several of the pages, or simply wish to review them individually with no real support for keeping.  And of the keep votes, I notice that several people, including yourself, are members of the Chess Wikiproject.  This represents a potential for a conflict of interest that leads me to weigh any responses by them very carefully.  FrozenPurpleCube 07:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, while you are welcome to express your opinions on these pages, there is a difference between that, and a personal attack. If you noticed, I have made no comments about you other than to request you refrain from personal attacks. FrozenPurpleCube 07:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I do respect you may be troubled by my numerous and perhaps lengthy responses, but I felt a need to speak on several of the issues raised in order to get people to either clarify their position, or address why I don't feel their argument in favor of keeping is effective. FrozenPurpleCube 07:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how being in the Chess Wikiproject is a "conflict of interest". The chess project goal is to improve articles dealing with chess.  I think the chess project is the best place to deal with these articles. That being said, I think that some of the sub-sub-variations do need to be merged back into a parent article.  Some of the major ones are OK.  Bubba73 (talk), 14:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the conflict of interest concern is that some of the persons who have argued to keep are responsible, if not for these articles, than creating articles just like them. Since conflict of interest is such a deep and abiding concern, I feel it is important to weigh the remarks more carefully.  It's one thing to be a strong advocate for something you support, it's another thing to let that advocacy lead you to ignore problems relating to the subject.
 * In any case, I think it would have been valid in the interests of full-disclosure to declare one's membership in the project, or substantial contribution to such pages. FrozenPurpleCube 15:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Being on the Chess WikiProject just means that we are interested in covering the game of chess in the best possible way on Wikipedia. Members on the project don't always agree either, although the tone among us has always been very polite and constructive. We have not even endorsed keeping all chess articles either. I am on the chess WikiProject, and I have nominated quite a few of them for deletion myself, and merged most of the articles on Nimzo-Indian variations in with the main article. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be the hope, but if you are not aware that in practice, members of a particular group can be biased, even in subtle ways that they don't realize, then I suggest you deeply examine your actions. Unconcious bias can creep in easily, leading to many problems for users.  This is not something I'm making up, and I'm sorry, but the tone has not always been polite and constructive.  You can see several personal attacks right here.  FrozenPurpleCube 14:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep whats the point of mushing them together? This what a reference work is for. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOT for a discussion of the various arguments that apply to Wikipedia not covering "everything" as well as numerous discussions to be found on AfD, but in short, it's because there isn't much to say in most of these openings except "move this piece here, move that here, person x does this" which in effect is not providing much in the way of general-purpose content. FrozenPurpleCube 13:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all There is no shortage of specialized literature, and the technical analysis of the game play is appropriate. They are not how-to-do-it, no chess book beyond the most elementary is in that category.DGG 06:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, tell me how they're not how-to-it equivalents telling you how to play the opening, typical responses, and the like? And please, note, once again, I am not contesting that they can be referenced, I am contesting the nature of the content, not its ability to be attributed.  FrozenPurpleCube 13:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all - some are very notable (e.g. Marshall Counterattack is mentioned even in many introductory courses and has already a vast literature) but even the less important openings are verifiable and can be sourced. WP is not a paper encyclopedia, we have place enough. The nominator says somewhere, that the articles are stubs and were not changed for a long time - OK but this is not a deletion reason I think. It is a reason for improvement only.--Ioannes Pragensis 06:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I am not so much concerned that they are stubs, so much I am concerned that they are substantially instructions to certain openings, and nobody has demonstrated any attempt to fix up or clean these pages despite my requests that something be done. While simply being a stub is not a problem, a complete lack of improvement over several months has convinced me that something needs to be done to bring the wider consensus into the picture.  FrozenPurpleCube 13:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think collecting these in a group nomination was ill-advised, because it is not at all obvious that all the articles should receive the same treatment. First off, that there is room for coverage of chess openings in Wikipedia can be illustrated that my paper encyclopedia ("Aschehougs konversasjonsleksikon") has a short article about the Caro-Kann Defense, although strangely, nothing on the other openings. Two of these articles, Staunton Gambit (a major variation of the Dutch Defense) and the Danish Gambit (pretty much an opening in itself) have plenty of content and should be kept as is. Two of the others, C93 (chess opening) and D59 (chess opening), just have the defining moves, and are just technical terms representing a classification system used by Encyclopedia of Chess Openings. Most chess players don't refer to openings by those codes in casual talk. We rarely talk about the "C93" opening, we just know it is a variation of the Ruy Lopez which has its own chapter in ECO. (Game collections sometimes use these codes so that referencing the myriad of opening literature is easier, on Wikipedia there is little need for that.) I think those can be deleted. (List of chess openings is a better place to define the moves of each code if we want that, but there is not a pressing need.) The others which are nominated are only a paragraph long and are best merged into the article on the opening which is easier on the reader. I merged a number of similar articles a month back. There are some chess opening variations which deserve separate articles, for example Sicilian Defence, Dragon Variation is a major variation in a giant of an opening. Tons and tons of literature has been produced about chess openings of all shapes and sizes so the articles which have some real content should be preserved in some form. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I tried to pick a variety of pages so that I could get a picture of where folks drew the line as to what's a good chess opening article and what's not. I felt that would give folks a chance to examine the pages, and give me some feedback so I'd be able to at least be more selective when I went throught the category for another pass. However, I am still wanting to know exactly what real content there is.  Could you relate to us exactly what the content of your paper encyclopedia has for that chess opening?  FrozenPurpleCube 13:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It defines the moves, says it has a solid reputation, and mentions a few top players who have played it. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So, the content is as minimal and spare as as the articles here? Oh well, then I'm still unconvinced of their value if that's all an article provides.  FrozenPurpleCube 14:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all. Even the minimal stubs, C93 and D59, are potentially subject to expansion, and Wikipedia is still not paper.  Chess has an extensive enough literature to merit fairly deep coverage. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What expansion would you suggest to those articles that would make them more than the how-to guides they are now? FrozenPurpleCube 16:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There's been some discussion on Talk:WP:NOT about how it applies to game rules, but as far as I can tell no real consensus has formed about them. For card games played with identical decks, describing the game means describing how to play it, and the same holds true for chess openings, I think.  The only articles nominated in the group that have any support for deletion here are the stubs with very little "how to" information added to them.  If they are expanded, they are mostly expanded with information useful to chessplayers.  I think that life is too short for a war on "chess cruft", whatever that is. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, first off, I do not consider this a war on "chess cruft" and I strongly disagree with the use of that term. (both in general and as applied here). I have expressed my concerns with regards to the nature of these pages as specifically as I can, namely that they are instructions to certain playstyles, with only the barest modicum of reference to any other kind of content.  I do not mind describing the rules to chess.  It seems fundamentally obvious to me that a good article on chess will include coverage of those rules.  I don't even mind talking about certain theories and even openings.  I am concerned that there seems to be no work whatsoever done to limit the coverage to truly notable openings, and that there doesn't seem to be even a consideration that maybe, just maybe, there should be some sort of standard for chess openings to have articles.  So far the inclusion has been open-ended, which creates a bad situation.  FrozenPurpleCube 20:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and your link was broken, I hope you don't mind me fixing it. FrozenPurpleCube 20:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. :) But I think you are mistaken about the depth of coverage available for chess.  Somewhere around here I have a book on "Unorthodox Chess Openings."  It covers just about every legal opening move for White that isn't a major one, most of the legal responses for Black, and in some depth.  All of the ones it discusses have names.  (My favourite is the American Attack in Alekhine's Defense, 1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Ng8.)  You can find published commentary and analysis for just about every legal opening in chess, in other words.  IM Michael Basman is the guru here.  This makes them all verifiable and reliably sourced, within the words of actual policy.  They are also notable, within the meaning of the guideline: they are subjects of multiple, non-trivial, published works; the ECO is one, the book I have around here is another.  In short: all chess openings are notable within the meaning of the only guideline that applies.  What you are proposing is a new, exclusive notability guideline applied only to chess, and I don't think any such can be generated by analogy from existing ones. - Smerdis of Tlön 22:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, there seems to be a disconnect in our communications here. I am, once again, not arguing that the problem is simply lack of references, (though there are a large number of these pages that do lack references) but rather that the content is non-encyclopedic in nature.  I'm sure many of these of these openings and variations can be referenced to some book somewhere.   That doesn't change their content, which is frequently nothing more than a listing of the moves and the occasional mention of some player of it. That is not any kind of encyclopedic depth at all.  Given that there doesn't seem to be any kind of standard as to including a chess opening or not, I consider this a problem, as it's very indiscriminate.   And this is also not a standard exclusively applied to chess.  Please review WP:NOT which is policy, and which says "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply:" (and I refer you to entry four for instruction manuals, which is what I'm applying to this page.  FrozenPurpleCube 23:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And if you can think of a similar subject which has pages on Wikipedia, I'll be quite willing to apply this same standard to them. the closest I can think of would be sports games (many of which are documented, the vast majority of which should not have articles) or TCG cards and combos (which in general only have articles based on their sets).  Might also consider programming functions to be similar, since I have some books with them documented in it.  I wouldn't imagine adding any of them to Wikipedia, even though they can all be documented. FrozenPurpleCube 23:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and while this isn't exactly the "same" situation, you might want to look at this AfD: Matthew Fenton AFD.  I am sure every single one of the three thousand or so servicemen killed in the current Iraq conflict can be verified.

I am also fairly sure this can be applied as far back as World War II, or even World War I in some cases. Maybe further. I would not support articles on them even with that being verified. FrozenPurpleCube 23:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all on procedural grounds. I think the group nomination is too broad. Some of these I think are keeps; others are too narrow to make an independent article. Please renominate as necessary. -- BPMullins | Talk 16:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * On what procedural grounds are you referring to? While certainly there can be problems with mass nominations, this is less than a dozen articles, all on the same subject, each of which can be reviewed and considered together.  If necessary, I can nominate individually, but I am not seeing your problem as being very clear.  Is there some reason you can't comment on the individual pages here?  Was it too many?  Would 5 or 6 be a better number?   FrozenPurpleCube 16:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep on procedural grounds, and too broad a collection of articles. An AFD nomination should not include the baby along with the bathwater. Nominate selectively. Edison 22:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly why is this too broad a collection of articles? What would constitute a more selective nomination?  FrozenPurpleCube 23:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that these articles aren't really instructional; they are, rather, technical descriptions of the game of chess. The Wikipedia articles about Monopoly and poker both contain technical explanations of how the games are played.  If these games warrant such descriptions, than chess—with its long, storied history and complex strategies—certainly does as well, especially since chess strategy has been a subject of study for a long time.  (On a side note: it would, perhaps, be advisable to put all of the chess openings in one article and redirect searches of the individual openings to it.)Fixer1234 23:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * First, I hope you don't mind that I moved your reply to the end here, since your comment was in the middle of a thread there, and I think it'll be easier to read if moved to the end. FrozenPurpleCube 23:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyway, while monopoly and poker do contain technical explanations of how the games are played, they don't contain descriptions of every game.    Even poker only has one page for the various hands in the game.  There's a few other pages like Dead Man's Hand and List of slang names for poker hands but in comparison, there's over 100 articles on chess openings.  I have no objection to Chess opening being an article.  I'm a bit concerned that List of chess openings is nothing but a directory, but while I think that might belong properly elsewhere, I'm not terribly worried about that.  My concern that these "technical descriptions of the game of chess" constitute the how-tos or instruction manuals is another issue though, and while Chess, like many things is the subject of a great deal of study, not all things that are studied or referenced deserve individual articles.  If all that an article has is a bare description of the moves, and maybe a brief mention that some grandmaster played it, is it really appropriate to have an article?  FrozenPurpleCube 23:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The point that I am making (and one I don't mean too press to strongly—I'm not emotionally tied to these articles) is that chess is somewhat more technically complex than poker--an adequate description of the game would require such lengthy description.  I see your point, however, regarding the volume of information on the subject—some of the openings may not be as important as others.   Perhaps the best option is to pending a closer review as is suggested by someone below.  It is also worth noting that the deleted material need not simply disappear.  This seems to be a great subject for a wikibook.  Perhaps a general (but detailed) article on chess openings could be maintained on Wikipeida along with article about the most important of the openings (the sort that are used in analogies in political science and economics classes), while the rest of the material is turned into a Wikibook on playing chess.  Just an idea. (The comment move is no problem, btw. I'm still somewhat new at this stuff.) Fixer1234 00:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't see what's stopping people from giving it a closer review right now. There's only nine articles, which I thought was a reasonable number for people to look over, being large enough to offer a fair variety of different pages in the category, but specific enough that it wasn't too much of a burden to examine them all.  Apparently it's too many though.  Could you give me an idea how many would be acceptable for you to review, or is it going to be necessary to nominate them individually?  I can do it, but I'm reluctant to do so since that can create more problems.  (trust me, it's annoying to have to comment in so many different places.) FrozenPurpleCube 01:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And while Chess is certainly a sport with exhaustive analysis and detail, that doesn't give it a free pass for every possible article on a subject somebody can cover in their book. If somebody wanted to transwiki all or most of these pages to a specific wikibook for chess openings, I'd be fine with that.  Chess opening is already on Wikipedia, and I have no inherent objection to it.  It might need some work, but in principle I accept that it belongs. I don't object to this being covered at all, it's neither false nor libelous.  It is, however, of dubious encyclopedic worth when a page is nothing more than instructions on a given opening with maybe, maybe, an offhand remark about somebody playing it.  FrozenPurpleCube 01:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep All pending a closer review. While there are certainly opening articles that could profitably be merged, nominating what appear to be a selection of random pages for AfD seems like a dubious idea at best.  What rationale was there for picking these eight out of all the chess opening articles?  Also, I have to disagree with the "How-to" claim - how else can you define a chess opening other than by listing the moves unique to it?  Since when has definition and analysis been a "how-to"? Yet even an encyclopedic and well-written page like Sicilian Defence now has a how-to tag plastered over it. Well, it did until I just removed it.  Eliminator JR  Talk  00:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I picked them because they represented a variety of the pages in the category, which while they are not all completely the same, are not significantly different from each other, and I felt that a review of the various pages would be more helpful in establishing a baseline so that on further passes through the category I would have more of an idea about what should be kept and what should be considered for deletion.  And I don't have a problem with articles on notable chess openings including descriptions of the moves.  My problem is that so many of these articles don't get to anything beyond that, and I don't see much chance of that happening either.  I don't see that Wikipedia is about teaching people how to play chess and that's the only thing I can get from these pages.   FrozenPurpleCube 00:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, those are the articles that I suggested could profitably be merged; however deleting them seems illogical, like deleting an article on a single episode of Star Trek and leaving all the other intact. I notice you've put the how-to tag back on Sicilian Defence; well, I'm not getting into an edit war there, but I'd be interested to see what you would do to that article in order to cure this - how about doing it in userspace?  I've also put forward an idea at the talk page.  Eliminator JR  Talk  12:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought this was clear from my nomination, but based on the results of this discussion, I intended to go through the category and propose further openings for deletion. There are 196 articles in the category.  Proposing them all at once would have been a bad idea, but to go through that number of pages, I felt the need for some criteria to have before trying an extensive review.  This is not the equivalent of Star Trek episodes, but more the equivalent of Star Trek characters or space ships.  Captain Kirk has an article.  There is a category for ships named the Enterprise.  Category:Enterprise ships (Star Trek).  That's a valid choice.  So is the Excelsior.  But many other Star Trek ships are only in List of Starfleet starships ordered by class.  (in fact, there were several recent AFDs on that).  Now it might be reasonable to create redirects for most of the chess openings to say List of chess openings but given the large numbers, I am not sure of that.
 * But the problem is still knowing when to do that, and when to leave the article as it stands. This is not always obvious from the article itself.  Thus this proposal.  FrozenPurpleCube 14:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See this example merge page for irregular openings in my userspace. I think we're actually on the same page here, except that I believe merging rather than deletion is the way to go.  Note that the suggested merge page only describes the openings briefly, in order to distinguish them.  Eliminator JR  Talk  16:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think we're on quite the same page. We might be getting closer together though.  I hope we're at least reading the same book.  To get my support for the article, it would need to focus more on what makes the subject of irregular chess openings meaningful, and less on covering various opening descriptions with maybe a few brief hints that somebody somewhere played it.  Great stuff for a Wikibook on Chess perhaps.  For an encyclopedia?  I'm afraid not.  (I'll leave aside the problem with a lack of references since the page is incomplete).  FrozenPurpleCube 17:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Edison. Ezratrumpet 01:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all while shorter ones should be merged. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 04:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Which ones are you suggesting be merged, and where do you think they should be merged? And what content do you think should be merged at all?  FrozenPurpleCube 06:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

'''merge most, keep the rest. No deletes'''
 * Alekhine's defense, Modern variation, 4...Bg4 - Merge into Alekhine's Defence
 * Benko Gambit, 7.e4 - merge into Benko gambit
 * Benoni, Taimanov variation - merge into Benoni Defense
 * C93 (chess opening) - merge into Ruy Lopez
 * Staunton Gambit - keep or merge into Dutch defense
 * Ruy Lopez, Marshall Counterattack - keep and expand (there should be much more to say), or merge into Ruy Lopez
 * D59 - merge into Queen's Gambit Declined
 * Danish Gambit - keep
 * French, Winawer, Advance Variation - merge into French Winawer (if it exists, French Defence otherwise) Bubba73 (talk), 14:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you care to address the problem I raised with the pages being nothing but instructions on particular variants? FrozenPurpleCube 15:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I honestly believe that your argument has no merit. This material is derived from books about chess openings, and by-in-large they describe moves that masters have made or analysis by masters.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, even if all of the pages were adequately sourced, they're still instructions on how to play the openings and thus violate WP:NOT (4). It doesn't matter that they can be sourced to reliable sources by grandmasters, at most such coverage would be appropriate in the grandmaster's page, not a separate article of its own.  This is the equivalent of taking Linux Source code and making it an article because Linus Torvalds or Alan Cox wrote it.  FrozenPurpleCube 16:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * These openings are not played by any one chess master. Why don't you start a Requests for comment?  Bubba73 (talk), 18:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And? Does being played by more than one master really make a difference?  Most chess masters play dozens, if not hundreds of games in a given period of time. The number of different openings they might play?  How many do you think that is?  It's too vast, the specificity might be useful somewhere, but I don't see why Wikipedia is it.  FrozenPurpleCube 21:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You may not be very familiar with chess. Of the millions and billions of possible openings, only a relatively small number are played.  Bubba73 (talk), 21:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understood the question I asked, which was about the number of games Chess masters play and what the number of different openings they might play. This is like Baseball.  While Babe Ruth is notable, not every game he plays get an article.  Besides, I'd like you to define relatively small number.  Yes, I'm sure out of the millions of possible combinations of chess moves, there are less than a few thousand even named, but so what?  If the only content that can be added is how to play it....that's not an encyclopedia article.  FrozenPurpleCube 22:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Go up a level from the #4 you keep citing, and there is Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. These openings are not an indiscriminate collection of information.  A list of every possible opening four or five moves deep would be an indiscriminate collection of info, but these openings are not.  To use a baseball analogy, an article about "how to" play is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  A list of the line score of every major league baseball game played would be.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Except, of course, for two problems. The first is that no matter what you say about some of the articles in the category, there are others whose only content is a description of the opening and instructions on the value of the play.  This may be valid content if you want to teach someone how to play that opening.  That is, not, however, the point of Wikipedia.  The second problem is the current open-ended standard which allows any and every named opening to have an article, regardless of putative merit.  Don't get me wrong, I can conceive of some of these openings having articles, but let's see, the ECO is a five-volume set, correct?  Sorry, but if all the content you can provide on an opening is a brief mention of a few games played and a dab of history...it's clearly not for Wikipedia.  FrozenPurpleCube 00:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * PS, if you can find articles on Wikipedia that come close to teaching one how to play Baseball, I'd be much surprised. Even if you do, I doubt you'd find close to 200 such articles.  Let me know though, I'd be glad to suggest them for cleanup.  FrozenPurpleCube 00:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And I tried getting comments, I tried approaching the Wikiproject. The result?  Nothing.  Thus this action.  FrozenPurpleCube 21:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It does appear that you are pretty much alone. So the AfD should suffice to clear up the situation.  Newton's law of universal gravitation gives "instructions" for calculating the gravitational force beteen two objects.  Should that be eliminated because it can be considered a "how to"? Bubba73 (talk), 21:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really, no.  Sorry if this offends, but I don't see much in the way of actual, informed consensus from a wide perspective being truly developed here.  This has devolved into a trainwreck, and I'm afraid I'm going to have to continue to work to fix the problems I see.  FrozenPurpleCube 22:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: I attempted to close the AFD early and was reverted. This is what I wrote in my closing statement, and it should be considered by whoever does actually close the AFD:


 * I have a few comments to add:
 * I am an experienced student of chess (see my user page), so I understand the substance of this discussion.
 * FrozenPurpleCube makes a fundamentally mistaken assumption in saying that Wikipedia articles on chess openings constitute a game guide. These articles are descriptive, not proscripitive.  They inform about what opening lines have been played by grandmasters and canonized in the standard literature.
 * There are literally thousands of books about chess openings in general. Major openings, such as the Ruy Lopez, have entire books devoted to them or to subvariations within them.
 * I recommend that some of the smaller stubs, such as C93 and D59, be merged upward. In general I do not see the need for individual articles for this level of specificity.  The larger articles, such as the Danish Gambit and Staunton Gambit, should be kept as they are.  I leave it to the judgment of User:Sjakkalle and User:Bubba73, who are both experienced writers in the chess section of Wikipedia, to execute the mergers in practice if they agree.
 * The nomination did expose one major flaw in these articles: the linkage between major and minor opening articles is often missing. For example, I found that the articles on Benko Gambit and Benko Gambit, 7.e4 do not have reciprocal links.  This might be an issue for the Chess WikiProject to work on. YechielMan 15:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with your argument about those books is that there is nothing in the way of encyclopedic content to them. Those opening books don't contain a long, interesting history of the opening.  They primarily contain instructions on play of the openings.  Exactly what these articles contain.  If it's in greater detail, the distinction is minimal.  There is no significance to the vast majority of the descriptions, with barely a few even claiming as much as some game somewhere was played using it.    FrozenPurpleCube 16:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - apparently notable as per comments above, can't see any benefit from a merge. Matthew 15:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment since this AfD has been prematurely closed twice, I have asked that a non-involved, neutral admin take responsibility for closing this AfD at the appropriate time and in the appropriate manner. I request that if anybody else feels a need to close this early, that they refrain from doing so.  FrozenPurpleCube 16:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. If Wikipedia is going to have coverage of chess at all, it has to say something about chess openings. In general the articles listed above seem harmless. Variations and sub-variations get harder to justify, though if good third-party sources were provided, this might be OK. The level of coverage provided here is nothing like the amount of detail in a book like Modern Chess Openings, so these articles are nothing like a handbook. The illustrative games in the Staunton Gambit I could do without. I see that some kind of database pointers have been provided for those games, and I would retain the pointers. The two articles on C93 (chess opening) and D59 (chess opening) I could do without; they don't look like real encyclopedia articles, they say so little. EdJohnston 22:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Many of these openings are of historical interest.-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  ♥  ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  01:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you please describe that historical interest, and if possible add the information to the page? FrozenPurpleCube 02:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep this and the other pages listed abv for suggested deletion!! Encylopedias are NOT generally 'in-depth' sources of info, rather broad general sources of info. This article give a good general overview for those non-serious players of the game or for those just starting out.  Serious players will get there "Grand Master" comments about this opening and its variations elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.68.195 (talk • contribs)
 * Merge minor openings into a list. Let major openings have their own list. Need chess players to decide which is which. I volunteer. Carcharoth 17:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 *  Comment: Good suggestion. Are you willing to start on a couple of articles right away? The AfD still has another day to run. The AfD participants would have a chance to comment on your work before the debate closes. EdJohnston 18:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Already started.  See this work in progress for minor openings and  this example merged opening article (both in userspace), and discussion at Wikiproject:Chess.  Eliminator JR  Talk  21:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Before the AfD closes, I'd like to bring up two points:
 * WP:NOT - the key word is "indiscriminate". I fail to see how chess openings could be considered an indiscriminate collection of information.  The selection is not indiscriminate.
 * Ok, then please do inform us as to the exact criteria which was used to select the chess openings that have been given an article. Furthermore, note, the real problem cited in WP:NOT is with the content, which is that of an instruction manual.   FrozenPurpleCube 20:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this is the problem; obviously in your opinion the articles are those of an instruction manual - however giving the defining moves for an opening and a little strategical and tactical background is not instruction. You would need a novel-sized book for each opening in order to do that. I own a book for a very minor opening (Grob's Opening) and even that is 105 pages long.  Eliminator JR  Talk  21:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion: "You don't have to make a recommendation on every nomination; consider not participating if: ... A nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar... " Bubba73 (talk), 20:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you saying I'm unfamiliar with the subject? I've been looking into this for several months.  I may not be a chess enthusiast, or a professional chess player, but accusing me of unfamiliarity is hardly convincing.  Or are you saying only chess experts are qualified to make decisions on articles and that there isn't even a desire to try to explain why those decisions were made?   You may wish to look at WP:EXPERT which says "In short, "Because I say so" is never an acceptable justification for a claim in Wikipedia, regardless of expertise." thus  If you truly believe I am mistaken, inform me, don't just call me ignorant.  That's not persuasive.  FrozenPurpleCube 20:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Could User:Bubba73 be implying that the nominator is pursuing this too aggressively? Though I voted keep (at least for most of them) I don't object to him asking these questions. (Though he shouldn't badger all the Keep voters; he has made 42 edits to this AfD so far). Some of the opening articles *are* of pretty low quality, and I do have an (old) copy of MCO on my shelf.  IMHO, the nominator should re-submit an AfD for the worst opening articles, and meanwhile we should hope that the people knowledgable about chess would work on quality improvement for the articles on major openings (including proper sourcing)... Does anyone from the Chess Wikiproject want to offer a different plan for what to do about these articles? EdJohnston 21:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See my reply to your comment, above. Also, I am also starting to slightly lose my WP:AGF as regards User:FrozenPurpleCube, especially following this edit where he removed Garry Kasparov from a list of Baby Boomers, claiming that he wasn't a Baby Boomer (he is) and that he wasn't born in the US (Baby Boomers don't have to be born in the US, and many on that list weren't). All seems a bit petty to me.  Eliminator JR Talk  21:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have never heard of being part of the Baby Boom being applied to countries of the Soviet Union, and List of important and famous Baby Boomers?  Furthermore, after reflection, I nominated the page List of important and famous Baby Boomers for deletion anyway, so accusing me of pettiness because of that is rather strange. But if you believe it's a serious problem, bring it up at the AFD.   FrozenPurpleCube 22:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a serious problem - as I said, given your Chess-related AfD's it just seemed a bit odd. Since you AfD'd it anyway (and it looks like it'll be deleted) it hardly matters in the grand scheme of things.   Eliminator JR  Talk  23:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The work that EliminatorJR linked to in his earlier comment looks very good. Would you all be in favor of extending this AfD for another 5-day cycle so that this approach could be discussed further?  I see that the nominator, FrozenPurpleCube, has actually joined in the discussion at the Chess project and I surmise that he filed this AfD because he observes no progress on the thread EliminatorJR cited, which began in December, 2006 and has had no updates since 5 January.  This could suggest that this AfD, while contentious, might actually be beneficial. So please respond on the issue of extending the AfD... If you don't want to extend it, do you have another idea for fixing the articles? EdJohnston 21:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Note - there's a more recent thread here.  Eliminator JR Talk  23:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See EliminatorJR's drafts of new pages here and here.  Personally, I think the outcome of the AfD is pretty clear.   The community seems to have presented arguments to the effect that material should stay.  There is no need for an extension.  Let the editing process take its course. Fixer1234 22:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And I think an extension of this discussion is still necessary. It doesn't have to be in AFD, but it's obvious to me that the problem remains unresolved.  As I said when I first brought this up back in November 2006, I don't want to disrupt Wikipedia, but I believe something ought to be done.  So far, the Chess Wikiproject has not demonstrated that they are doing anything.  FrozenPurpleCube 22:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Every single person so far in this AfD has disagreed with you in one way or another. You honestly think an extension will change something? --Deskana (fry that thing!)  15:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, several people have agreed with me on the substance of the issues I have brought up, which is namely that there is an issue regarding these pages. Note the people who have said they would merge or delete several of the pages involved.  I don't expect perfect agreement with me, and since I have not developed a firm position on anything but there is a problem, I'm open to change.  Disregarding the folks who recognize there is a problem in an attempt to single me out as a trouble-maker is not appropriate either.  Working to develop consensus is not a matter of who you can bully by saying "everybody else thinks you are wrong, wrong wrong" but rather trying to convince someone of your position by explaining it.  FrozenPurpleCube 16:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have a position. And I'm sorry if you misunderstood the meaning of my post because I was unclear- I meant that nobody has voted delete, as you did when creating the nomination. Either way, it's a keep. --Deskana (fry that thing!)  21:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.