Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav attack, 10.O-O-O


 * 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. 1ne 01:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav attack, 10.O-O-O

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I am nominating this page for deletion because it constitutes nothing more than a brief instructional guide to a particular variation of a chess opening. (see WP:NOT(4). In addition, rhere are no references on the page, and while I suppose it is possible the name can be referenced, I do not see any kind of assertion of notability in it.  (Note:  I also nominated several chess openings at once here but since people expressed a desire to weigh some of these pages individually, I decided to give folks a chance for that. Apologies if this seems too quick, but I see no reason to delay further. I do not feel a merge or redirect is appropriate because there's no real encyclopedic content, the title is unlikely for a redirect, and Sicilian Defence, Dragon Variation is itself dubious in my view. This may be valuable content if you want to teach somebody all about chess, but is that what Wikipedia is about? FrozenPurpleCube 18:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep for now. Refs  etc. However, this may in the future be a good merge candidate for a larger Sicilian Defence page. The information is encyclopedic just as much as say, Ludo. Eliminator JR Talk  13:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ludo is a disambig page. I assume you meant Ludo (board game), but there is a huge gap between an article on a board game, whether it be Chess or Ludo, and an article that simply describes how to play a particular variant is not encyclopedic.  It is, as I said, indiscriminate information, in particular number four.  Neither of the sites you linked to establish the notability of the actual opening, or provide any substantial content about the opening's history.  They just describe how to play the opening.  That is not encyclopedic at all.  FrozenPurpleCube 15:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly encyclopedic. The articles are verifiable definitions of the openings. However, look at my comment below.  Give me some time to work on this, and I think we can come to a workable position.  Eliminator JR  Talk  15:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe need to look at WP:NOT and WP:ATA. These are indeed definitions of the openings.  That is not actually encyclopedic content, especially since they concentrate heavily on description and advice on play, and focus little (and sometimes not at all) on anything else.  FrozenPurpleCube 16:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment. There are dozens of similar articles, see the category of chess opening stubs. These all need to be dealt with in the same manner. This has been brought up at the Chess project from time to time, and the general consensus has been to merge these small articles about sub-variations back into the main article about the opening, except for perhaps a few such as Sicilian Dragon. So far, no one (including me) seems to want to put in the time to do it. It certainly needs to be done, I believe. Bubba73 (talk), 14:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC) added: Well, there seem to be a lot fewer of them in that category than there were, but there are still quite a few, especially under Ruy Lopez and Sicilian. Bubba73 (talk), 14:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There are indeed dozens of such articles, and since I brought this up months ago, discussed it at the Chess Wikiproject, I have noticed no significant action, that it was going to be worthwhile and necessary to draw attention to the problem. It may seem to you that there are a lot fewer, but I saw roughly the same number as before, and no evidence of action on your part, or anybody else's.   FrozenPurpleCube 15:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, just to be clear, what do you believe should be done about this article in particular? FrozenPurpleCube 15:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * merge I was just going by memory of there seeming to have been a lot more earlier. I could easily be wrong about that. Action does need to be taken to either expand or merge them, but I see no reason to delete them. I am not well enough versed in the openings to do much work on them. I think this article should be merged into Sicilian Defense, Dragon Variation. Bubba73 (talk), 15:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What could be done to expand them? And what's the point of merging content that is nothing but a description of an opening?  Is that information not available elsewhere?  I'm all for redirects, but there's a point where even I have to admit, the plausibility of a search term is nil.  FrozenPurpleCube 16:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said on the project page, I will look at these with a view to merge. I'm still working on the irregular openings stubs at the moment, though. If FrozenPurpleCube can just hold off on these random AfDs for a short time, I will try to do this.  Eliminator JR Talk  15:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the Chess Wikiproject has had months to do something. I am not nominating pages randomly,  I am nominating pages because after effort on my part to get awareness of this problem raised, and waiting several months for something to be done, nothing has actually been done to resolve the concerns that I, and others have expressed.   FrozenPurpleCube 16:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am only a recent contributor to Wikipedia, so give me some time on this, please. Of course, there is the possibility that nothing has been done because other editors consider the articles to be encyclopedic?  Eliminator JR Talk  16:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's quite possible these editors don't consider there is a need to do anything. That, I believe is mistaken, and I have yet to be convinced otherwise.   FrozenPurpleCube 16:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge with Sicilian Defence, Dragon Variation. Going into a sub-sub-variation is a bit too detailed for a separate article and the page is only a paragraph long. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

*Merge with Sicilian Defence, Dragon Variation. Bubba73 (talk), 12:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Note, this is a duplicate comment, as this user already suggested a merge above. FrozenPurpleCube 14:07, 16 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.