Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stonewall Attack


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Stonewall Attack

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Wikipedia is not a game guide: "This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides...". Colonel Warden (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. (I'll disclose that I am the original author for the article, although it was back in 2005 when inline citations weren't considered so crucial.) Chess has more independent literature on it than all Super Mario and Pokemon games put together and almost all serious chess openings have multiple books written about them. Regarding the Stonewall Attack specifically, the opening is not a primary opening at the top level, but it has received a fair amount of coverage, and a look at Amazon shows that there is at least one monograph book devoted to this opening, "The Stonewall Attack" by Andrew Soltis (1993). In addition, several books devote a chapter to the Stonewall, for example "How to beat 1 d4" by Rizzitano and "Dealing with d4 deviations" by Cox. This in addition to the sources cited in the article, so I am quite certain the article is notable. An overview of the strategies involved in the Stonewall, and its popularity is appropriate material for an encyclopedia as long as it doesn't get bogged down with specific moves. There are parts of the current article I don't like much, for example "Sample game" (which was taken from the Evans article), but that is not a reason to delete the whole article. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Other books on the Stonewall (besides numerous general books):
 * White Opening System: Combining Stonewall Attack, Colle System, Torre Attack (Soltis)
 * Aagaard, Jacob (2001). Dutch Stonewall
 * Johnsen, Sverre; Bern, Ivar; Agdestein, Simen (2009). Win With the Stonewall Dutch
 * Dealing with d4 Deviations: Fighting The Trompowsky, Torre, Blackmar-Diemer, Stonewall, Colle and Other Problem Openings, by John Cox
 * Modern Stonewall Dutch, by Eric Schiller
 * Trends in the Classical and Stonewall Dutch vol 2, Bogdan Lalic Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not disputed that there are books about chess opening and lots of them. The issue here is whether strategy guides are appropriate material given that we have a policy which explicitly forbids them.  Walkthroughs and strategy guides are commonly deleted for other games, such as computer games.  This happens even though there are books written about them too.  This material seems no different. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Computer games are plot-based, and game guides/walkthroughs are then more or less on par with extensive retellings of the plot. Such game guides and walkthroughs are usually poorly sourced as well (either being OR, sourced to game magazines which are published by the same people who made the game, or self-published by fans.) Chess is a different thing entirely, and often treated as a sport and science as well as a game. Overviews of strategy are crucial for understanding the game's nature. Chess openings can be covered in encyclopedic instead of an instructional fashion, as illustrated by books like Oxford Companion to Chess, which is a specialist encyclopedia and not an instructional book. Instead of comparing this to computer game guides, I think a far more pertinent comparison is with Formation (association football), which tells about contemporary football strategy without being game guide content. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Games played on the computer are of all kinds - the computer is a medium not the message. Chess may be played on the computer too and the article in question discusses computer play and strategy.  Your claim that this "is a different thing entirely" is thus refuted. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are only two sentences about computers in the article. The article isn't telling you how to play against a computer.  People play the Stonewall against other people.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It makes no difference as our policy forbids game guides of all sorts, not just computer game guides. The how-to policy is used to strike down instructional material of all kinds.  The point is that we are not here to provide detailed instructions on how to do something.  For one thing, someone might sue us if we get it wrong.  So, we might have an article about chess openings which discusses them as a cultural and intellectual phenomenon and gives a few examples.  What we don't do is list all the openings, detailing their moves and pros/cons.  Colonel Warden (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is descriptive and not "how to" and not instructional. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)Keep - It's a Chess Opening and none of those things described by the AFD nominator. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A chess opening is a game guide, being a walkthrough or how-to for the game. These are explicitly forbidden by the policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is definitely notable. --MrsHudson (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability is not in question. There are many topics which are covered in great detail in sources but we still choose not to cover them. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

(UTC)
 * Strong keep - the objections do not apply. The article describes one of a very large number of chess openings.  It isn't a walk through, game guide, etc. It isn't written as an instruction manual.  It doesn't say "put this piece on that square then put this piece on that square."  It doesn't tell you what to play, as there are many alternate openings.  It describes how this particular system is played (i.e. it is encyclopedic as opposed to instructional).  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:12, 29 October 2010
 * Of course it's a walkthrough. It's all about the particular moves one can make in this branch of the game tree and their strategic and tactical merits.  For example, it starts "it is characterized by White playing 1.d4, 2.e3, 3.f4 and 4.c3".  It then goes on to discuss how if White does this then Black can do that and so on.  Just what is meant by a "game guide" if it is not material of this kind? Colonel Warden (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Game guide links to: "Strategy guides are instruction books that contain hints or complete solutions to specific video games." This isn't hint, a complete solution, or a video game.  Read the intro of walkthrough and you see that it doesn't apply either. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source and the articles you cite are poorly sourced. Per the OED, a guide is "In the titles of books:  A book of instruction or information for beginners or novices (in an art, etc.)".  A game guide is therefore, in plain English, a guide to a game and we forbid these just as we forbid travel guides and other instructional works. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That is Original synthesis. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - as most serious chess players will know, this is a chess opening and merits a place alongside all the other chess openings on WP. Yes, there may be elements of strategic or tactical guidance contained within the article, but intrinsically, that is what a chess opening is - a systematic method of developing the pieces in order to achieve certain strategic and tactical objectives. Other chess opening articles offer similar guidance and for good reason. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt that we need an explanation of what a chess opening is. The point at issue here is our policy.  Do you have a policy-based argument? Colonel Warden (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Policies are all about interpretation. You have to look deeper. It is clear that the many opening articles on WP attempt to describe, in an encyclopedic manner, what are the known elements of an individual opening, the basic moves, the common themes, tactics, motifs and tabiyas. Removing this material would be to treat the subject in a shallow, superficial manner and it would fail to communicate any understanding to the reader. Simply stating the established strategies and aims of an opening is not however the same as - (1) advocating the use of a particular opening to the reader, or (2) delivering a detailed exposition of which lines lead to an advantage and the extent of that advantage, or (3) pointing out any unexplored avenues that exist and which might lead to promising positions, or (4) describing how known positions might be evaluated or re-evaluated to enhance or improve our theoretical understanding of a position. It is those types of treatment of the subject matter that would comprise an instructional guide on chess openings and would of course also contain subjective opinions and original research. Brittle heaven (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This article is no more a game guide than Sacrifice bunt or Intentional walk. It is about a single strategy that can be used at a single point in a game. As such, it is clearly outside the intent of WP:NOTGUIDE. The subject has obviously received significant coverage, and book-length treatment is about as good as it gets. Given that NOTGUIDE does not seem to apply as written, there is no policy-based reason for deletion.  Jim Miller  See me 18:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia's chess opening articles are not game guides.  This hasn't come up recently, but a few years ago several chess openings were nominated for AFD with the same rationale and the articles were kept.  Certainly consensus can change, but other commenter's comparisons to articles describing aspects of other sports are apt.  These articles are akin to those you can find in Category:American football formations.  Quale (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2010 (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.