Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grünfeld 4.Bf4

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 Redirect to Grunfeld Defence. Walton Need some help? 16:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grünfeld 4.Bf4

edit
Grünfeld 4.Bf4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This page is currently unreferenced (WP:ATT), its history indicates it was created as an attempt at link spam, and there is no content besides instructions on this particular opening (WP:NOT#IINFO 4). It lacks any assertion of notability, and I see nothing significant worth merging to Grünfeld Defence as the content is itself just a description of the opening in a highly instructional manner, instead of encyclopedic. Besides, as this was the result of someone's link spam, I would prefer if there is any coverage of it, that it be started fresh. And while I'm sure it could be referenced somewhere, there are many hundreds of named chess openings and sub-variants. Coverage of them in indiscriminate fashion isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. Note I would not particular object to transwiki'ing this to Wikibooks if that is desired. FrozenPurpleCube 19:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add: BTW, I should note that List of chess openings has 20 variants named just for the Grunfeld. Only 3 (including this one) have articles. Neither of the others have adequate references, and only one (the exchange variation) has even the slightest attempt at coverage beyond a listing of the movies. FrozenPurpleCube 20:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add: I also have no great objection to a redirect. I do, however, object to merging this unsourced content which has no real assertion of notability in and of itself. Just delete it, don't merge to any other page, and if you really think it's worthwhile, redirect afterwards. But don't just copy it. That's bad practice. FrozenPurpleCube 06:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've already covered that issue. I see nothing worth merging to Grünfeld Defence. This is a listing of moves in an instructional manner, nothing more. If there is some significance to this variant, then it might as well be directly from whatever source establishes that significance rather than moving unreferenced content elsewhere. FrozenPurpleCube 19:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This user has already recently nominated two chess opening articles for AfD. (here and here). Both were kept. The nom continues to argue against general consensus that chess opening articles are not generally notable, citing his opinion that they are "how-to" articles in contravention of WP:NOT. The first of those AfDs contains the relevant discussion, also to be seen at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chess. However, there is also general consensus that some opening stubs could be merged into their parent article with no loss of information. The nominated article is one of those, and a merged article on the Grünfeld Defence is ready for activation, which will result in the nominated article becoming a Redirect to it. I have little idea quite why the nom thinks that deleting relevant information, rather than merging it into the relevant article, is in line with Wikipedia guidelines.EliminatorJR Talk 00:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, if you read the first discussion, there were several people who remarked that they considered articles such as this one deletion candidates. Sadly, dealing with them got lost in the trainwreck of a mass nomination (my fault, should have started smaller), though the closing admin did suggest renominating several articles. The second one lead to only two comments, by yourself and the other person. That is not, actually consensus. It's minimal participation at best. Thus I seek a wider consensus from more people. You'll have to pardon me for trying to get what I see as a real issue addressed, I am trying my best not to be disruptive, despite numerous personal attacks against me. And seriously, can you say there's anything worthwhile merging in this article? What's important about this, or any of the 20 other variations? Is there some reason to include this and not the others? Not that I can tell. Don't get so caught up in your feelings for me that you forget that it's the content that matters, not me. Work on Grünfeld Defence if you want, but I see nothing to bother with here. It's not even sourced. So you're going to have to look for a source anyway, to both verify it and to establish its notability. If you just merge it then you've done thing to fix it. That's why I say delete it. But perhaps if you weren't so suspicious of me you might have seen that option for yourself instead of accusing me yet again here. FrozenPurpleCube 00:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I am accusing you of anything (which I don't think I am) it's that your lack of knowledge of the subject is leading you to throw AfDs at the wrong subjects. For instance, two of the items in your first AfD, D59 (chess opening) and C93 (chess opening) would have stood far more chance of succeeding if they hadn't been bundled in with a group of obviously notable articles. (I note that both of those articles have been redirected to their main openings since - a decision don't disagree with at all). However I don't understand the rationale for this AfD. You know, since you've been reading Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chess that this article is about to get merged and redirected, so why nominate it for deletion? EliminatorJR Talk 01:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if you didn't want to come across as accusing me, perhaps you would have considered commenting on the substance of the article instead of your thoughts on me. Your comment starts off about me. If you'd wanted to talk about the article, perhaps you might have considered starting off with "I think this should be merged because.." and leaving out the antagonism on your part. Take an honest look at it, it's unsourced. It's nothing but a list of moves. Exactly what is the point of merging? Thus my suggestion of deletion instead of trying to merge. If you want to improve Grünfeld defense at least come up with a reason to include information on this variant there. Which isn't in this article. So look for that, source it, add it to Grunfeld if appropriate. But don't merge this blindly just because it exists. That'd be a bad idea. FrozenPurpleCube 01:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One quick comment about this one versus the other 20 or so variations of the Grunfeld - after a pretty standard first three moves by White, masters have generally chosen one of three major 4th moves, and this is one of them. So it is a major branch, unlike some of them which were on move 10-12. Bubba73 (talk), 01:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of that can be found in this article, can it? So just delete it, and if you can source that, see about adding it into the other article.
And did the person merging use those sources, or just cobble the page together, leaving those sources on there, without checking whether or not they contained information supporting any of the added information? FrozenPurpleCube 01:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I used extra sources to add information, which can be seen in the new article. EliminatorJR Talk 23:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, looking at that new content, it seems you're drawing a conclusion there. You'll want to cite it so you don't appear to be making OR. FrozenPurpleCube 23:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote it slightly to remove the weasel words. Its popularity graph is in the pages linked by the refs. EliminatorJR Talk 23:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect. Since it is now merged into Grünfeld Defence, a redirect is appropriate. (The merge work has been ongoing the last several days, as the AFD nominator was well aware.) The page could also be deleted as it is an unlikely search term. I've forgotten if there's a special deletion procedure for redirects, but I'm sure someone here will know. If so, we could also wait until we have several redirect pages left over from merged chess opening stub articles and have them deleted in a bunch rather than individually. Quale 05:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the Grũnfeld per Quale. Redirects are usually preferable to redlinks when dealing with defunct articles since they point the reader to where they now can find the info. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can make a redirect to that page after deletion, I have no especially great objection to that. I do, however, think that unsourced content that is simply an instruction manual shouldn't be merged. If there is any reason to discuss this variant on the Grunfeld page, then that needs to be found and sourced anyway, so it might as well be started fresh with reliable sources, not just some attempt at linkspam. FrozenPurpleCube 06:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe you misunderstand how a redirect is accomplished. It would simply replace the current contents of the page (see WP:R). There's no need to delete the page to redirect, and no point in it either. There's no need to go through AFD if a merge is the goal. Either be WP:BOLD or use Template:Mergeto and Template:Mergefrom if you think the merge might be controversial. (In this case I'm sure it wouldn't have been, as there has been strong support for these sorts of mergers on WT:CHESS for several months, long enough even for some of the discussions to be archived.) For any complaints about the Grünfeld Defence page, the appropriate venue is Talk:Grünfeld Defence. Quale 06:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And maybe you don't understand what I'm saying. I disagree with having a redirect with the article history intact because this is ultimately the result of linkspam. It's pretty simple. There's no need to merge, as the content is currently unsourced at best, and nothing more than an instruction manual anyway. Therefore, I think it's better to delete this content, which means that if there is anything worthwhile to say about this variant in the main article, it'll be fresh and appropriately sourced, and not the result of someone's attempt to exploit Wikipedia. So, it's simple enough to just delete it. If there's any use in a redirect, you can do it afterwards, but don't leave the trash around. And your claims of strong support are not supported by real actions. Heck, many of the linkspams in these articles remain intact despite being around for months or years. So forgive me for being dubious about this problem being fixed. FrozenPurpleCube 07:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The merge is a fait accompli—it's already done, and AFD is not the appropriate place to discuss merges anyway. The information is already in Grünfeld Defence, so it doesn't much matter to me whether Grünfeld 4.Bf4 becomes a redirect or is deleted, although a redirect would seem most expedient. Normally page history is not a concern unless it contains libel or certain legally protected information related to invasion of privacy. I don't see anything in [1] that is a cause for concern. Quale 08:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge's are often brought up as a solution on AFD's, and um, it's pretty easy to undo the merge. See the guide to deletion which clearly says "You should exercise extreme caution before merging any part of the article. If you are bold but the community ultimately decides to delete the content, all your mergers must be undone. (This is necessary in order to remain compliant with the requirements of GFDL). It is far better to wait until the discussion period is complete unless there is a strong case for merge under the deletion policy." I see no strong case here. I didn't and still don't support the merge of unsourced content. Failure to rectify this has not made Grunfeld better, it's just moved the problem there. Not an improvement. Instead of making the article better, it's become a Frankenstein of pieced together parts some of which are dubious. It would have been much better to delete the pages it was merged together from and work fresh. FrozenPurpleCube 08:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that all the similar articles on AFD were merged would be a strong indicator that the same will happen with this one, so I don't think merging them now in order to get the Grũnfeld article in shape quickly was a particularily reckless undertaking. As for sourcing, the opening sentence "In chess, D82 is the ECO code for the Grünfeld 4.Bf4" gives a source by itself, in particular the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings volume D, chapter 82 which has some three to four pages of analysis together with game fragments, which will confirm the outline of the main lines of this variation. The thing which ECO does not really source is the solid reputation of D82, but the books on the Grûnfeld, e.g. by Pachman ("Indian Defenses") will verify that this is the case for moves such as 4.Bf4, 4.Nf3 and 4.Qb3, in contrast to the aggressive line is the Exchange Variation 4.cxd5. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You said you objected to the merging of unsourced content. I just told you that ECO sources the main outline of the variations, and I did that to meet your objection. I told you as well that a chess book like Indian Defenses by Pachman will source the line on the variation being regarded as "safe", and though that book is not listed as a source, (it was not used when the article was created) each of the four books listed under Grünfeld Defense will tell you the same thing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then it should be easy to look at those actual references. Then whatever's worth including can be included and directly cited. Though honestly, if all they've got to say is a recounting of the moves and advice on playing them, I'm not sure that establishes in itself a reason to include it. I know you mean well, but I'm just not sure you're looking at this with an unbiased perspective. FrozenPurpleCube 13:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In general, AFD is not an appropriate forum for a content dispute. I wish I knew you mean well, but WP:AGF is not WP:Infinite patience with unending silliness. Quale 13:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this as a content dispute. The page is a problem, merging it elsewhere with a redirect won't solve it. It's a real pity that nobody outside the insular chess community has even remarked here. FrozenPurpleCube 14:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for Closing Admin The nominator has now put {fact} tags all over the merged article, some of which are patently spurious per User:Sjakkalle above. The nominator's comment about undoing merges above, coupled with now making unnecessary work for editors based on a viewpoint which is obviously not shared in the community means that it is becoming harder and harder for myself and the rest of the chess article editors to assume good faith. The fact that the nominator knew that this article was part of an ongoing Merge and Redirect exercise on WikiProject Chess makes it even closer to a bad faith nomination. While the nominator does occasionally make good points (and they are ofted acted upon), we are trying to make Wikipedia more encyclopedic by reducing the number of unsourced sub-variant stubs and it's a difficult enough piece of work as it is, without a single editor disrupting it with his own interpretation of WP:NOT. EliminatorJR Talk 10:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • response for closing admin Thank you, but I was not part of any ongoing merge and redirect exercise, if there was anything going on, I've moved myself out of it due to the hostile reaction I've received when I've said anything. And sorry, but it doesn't seem to me that you are trying to reduce the number of problems in these pages. Instead, you're just perpetuating the problem. Heck, has anybody else noticed that besides myself, the only participants here are members of WP:CHESS? Sorry, but I just can't see this discussion continuing if it's dominated by those with a vested interest in the problem. FrozenPurpleCube 12:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without invoking WP:EXPERT, perhaps that's because most editors with little or no knowledge of the game (and hence likely to be involved in WP:CHESS) are put off by the technical nature, perhaps considering they would not be able to differentiate between notable and non-notable chess opening articles. EliminatorJR Talk 12:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I think it's because people see this, realize it's an ugly mess, and don't wish to involve themselves. However, silence is not actually a good way to develop consensus. Nor is this heap of noise. FrozenPurpleCube 14:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of any requirement that one only remark once in an AFD, and I've replied politely and considerately to those remarks I felt it was appropriate to address directly. Do you have some problem with the content of them? Have I been rude or offensive? I don't feel so, but if you could show me where, besides the act of replies I've made, you have a problem, it might help address the issue. Of course, in the future, it'd help if you didn't make comments like your original one to this AFD which didn't discuss the issues with the content of this page, but rather with well, me. That just sets things up on the wrong path. FrozenPurpleCube 16:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? Like the "that's nice" comment above? My original comment wasn't an attack on you, but an attempt to give some background to the AfD for editors who might not be familiar with the situation. If you wish to construe it as such, that's your prerogative. You don't appear to be aware how frustrating your edits can be - let's face it, you complained that there were too many unsourced chess opening stubs, and when we try to reduce them by merging into one article (the Grunfeld Defence article has removed four stubs), you still attempt to attack the articles. EliminatorJR Talk 17:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What, praytell is wrong with saying "that's nice" ? Is there some insult to saying something is nice that I'm not aware of? At most, it's sarcasm, and um, sarcasm isn't a personal attack or accusation. It may be a little abrasive, I suppose, but that's really pushing it. And um, I'm not attacking the article. This isn't an attack by me and it's not constructive for you to treat it like one. It's expressing the concern that there are problems with WP:V, WP:N, and WP:NOT#IINFO, all of which have not been addressed, but instead ignored in preference to your attacks upon me. If you were truly interested in convincing me to not nominate pages for deletion, you need to try to convince me better than just merging them. Deal with my concerns. Make the pages better. Don't just gather all the mistakes in one place as if that fixed anything. It doesn't. FrozenPurpleCube 18:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are again misrepresenting the opposition against deleting when tou write that concerns have not addressed. Shall we go through them: WP:V was addressed, because I told you that this opening is covered in Encyclopedia of Chess Openings, volume D chapter 82. The opening is also covered in Modern Chess Openings, when I checked this one too had a reference calling the Bf4 variation "safe". Second, WP:N is quite subjective, but with all the literature written about the Grũnfeld (no less than four books are provided as reference in the main article), I find your assertion of lack of notability hard to swallow when so many have bothered to write about it. Moreover, deletion is not the only cure for dealing with non-notable subjects, merging is often a better solution. You should note that none of the so-called "biased" WP:CHESS editors have opined to keep this article outright. As for WP:NOT#IINFO, that is one interpretation of "indiscriminate", but we have actually been discriminate in only covering openings which have a solid foundation in chess literature. Furthermore, the reason you gave for calling it NOTIINFO is wrong; you write in the nomination "there is no content besides instructions on this particular opening". Yet the article has the lines "named after an Austrian chess player Ernst Grünfeld" (doesn't instruct anything), "D82 is the ECO code for the Grünfeld 4.Bf4" (nothing instructional, in fact it sources the article) and "This is considered a safe continuation for White" (which is not instructional, just tells about how chess theorists view the opening). Hence your statement that we have not tried meeting your concerns is a proof by assertion, and while that kind of argumentation can be very tiresome to argue against, and will always let you get in the last word if you keep it up, it is not a valid way of reasoning. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see, I already said I'm sure you could properly reference it in the nomination, I'll copy it again "And while I'm sure it could be referenced somewhere, there are many hundreds of named chess openings and sub-variants. Coverage of them in indiscriminate fashion isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia." . So, why cover this variant, and not any of the others that are variants of the Grunfeld? Or heck, think of the hundreds, if not thousands, of other openings to be found in the ECO and MCO. Covering them indiscriminately is a problem. It's like covering every line of scripture in the Bible. Some discretion is required. That has not been demonstrated. And I'm sorry, but you have misrepresented me by taking my remarks out of context as what I actually said was also followed up by "and I see nothing significant worth merging to Grünfeld Defence as the content is itself just a description of the opening in a highly instructional manner" and I continue to ask, exactly what's significant about saying it's named after this person that can't logically be covered in the main article? Nothing that I can see. Sorry, but that's a very flimsy shield to say keeping one should be the information in this article. It's not especially meaningful at all. BTW, just because some putative chess theorists believe something is "safe" doesn't make it any less instructional. Not when none of them have been named, nor significance given to their opinions. Thus no context is given to the statement. It's always better to tie things to actual people, when that's not done, it's not encyclopedic at all. It's instructional, because there's no attempt to inform people as to which theorists think it's safe. Your attempts to convince me I'm wrong by saying my perceptions are incorrect are not persuasive, they're the wrong tack to take. This is because I don't consider you unbiased, you're a chess player, you've contributed to many of these problematic articles. In a sense, you're responsible for the problem. So I expect you to find it hard to perceive that there is one. I hold no malice against you, but I simply don't see you as fairly examining the situation. So as I said, the substance of this article is recounting the moves. Find something beyond that. If you can't, then I continue to oppose keeping the information in this article. Keeping the page versus merging is irrelevant. The information is itself the core of the problem. It shouldn't be included unless there's something meaningful to it. That hasn't been shown, FrozenPurpleCube 14:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you haven't been reading it recently? I see several comments by users such as Mangoe, Arkyan,Bossi, >Radiant<, and Rocksong do express sentiments that I interpret as concerns that pages need to be more than just openings. Did you not see "There's an AfD up at this time for an article about a single move in one opening. Articles on the various openings seem like a good idea; articles on the variations within them do not." or "What can be said about QGD; Slav, 4.Nc3? It's a variation on a variation of a move. No sourcing, no history, no referenced analysis - probably should be no article. My two cents, of course!" or "Significant moves w/ extensive history and information are relevant enough per WP:PAPER (in my opinion, of course), but variations and such should be nixed as independent articles and instead worked into the main article from which they are derived. If too much information is acquired for a variation, then perhaps it may merit its own article; but I do not see such as being a particularly common event." Perhaps you may wish to inquire with those users to explain their statements, because obviously I'm reading them quite differently than you are. FrozenPurpleCube 14:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet the QGD Slav Nc3 article referenced above is one of those that is a perfect article for a merge into the main QGD article, a process that you are hindering with AfDs like this. Also, while I'm here, you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about WP:NPA. Let's get this straight. No-one has personally attacked you. If I say "you are an idiot" with no backup of that statement, then that's obviously a personal attack. However, if I say "your edit pattern is hindering an attempt to make Wikipedia more encyclopedic" then that isn't, it's an opinion based on editing patterns. EliminatorJR Talk 17:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you don't believe you are making personal attacks, but that doesn't mean you aren't commenting on the contributor, not the content. As for my hindering the process, since you are clearly involved in this situation, and have indicated that in the past your judgment is suspect, I don't feel you are truly biased and neutral enough to consider my actions fairly. Frankly, I think your, and several other editors focus on me is hindering the process far more than anything I'm doing. It certainly doesn't indicate a willingness to deal with the actual issue involved. If you do believe I am causing an excessive problem, why don't you seek comment elsewhere, and see if you can get support from others as to your issues. There are several forums where you can address that, including WP:WQA and WP:RFC/USER. While I respect your concerns, in that I know several people are upset, I think you're using that to deflect the responsibilities of all parties involved this case. I certainly know many people are reacting poorly to my concerns. This doesn't convince me my concerns are mistaken, their poor reactions have only convinced me that they aren't honestly listening. So, while I'm sure there is plenty of mud going around, I think you need to see that it's coming from all sides. I've offered suggestions on how to address the issue, what suggestions do you have to offer me? How can I convince you that I am genuinely interested in fixing this problem, and that I do not intend to be disruptive? I'll tell you how you can start to convince me. Don't do thinks like refer to my actions as attacks or as part of a war. That's not the way to go at all. FrozenPurpleCube 18:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question was aboutchess moves being "indiscriminate information", and no one agreed with you about that. If you check the old Chess project talk pages, I believe that you will find that I brought up the issue of the stubs of variations before you did. Bubba73 (talk), 15:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel several of them actually made remarks that are in congruence with what I've been saying all along, thank you. Since you don't agree, I'll just ask all of them to share their views. Perhaps they can correct your misapprehension. FrozenPurpleCube 18:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that there will be some folks commenting on this who aren't members of WP:CHESS and who don't regularly contribute to chesss articles. This AFD is still relatively young, and it isn't surprising that chess editors noticed it early—they watch the chess articles fairly closely, and furthermore the Grünfeld Defence and related articles were being actively worked on at the time. If no one else chooses to weigh in here I would suggest that it is because your views have little support, as suggested by the results of earlier similar AFDs you began. I don't intend to become you and comment 20 times on this AFD. I've said my piece, you can have as many last words as you like. Quale 13:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to see some of these outsiders. And please, remember to comment on the content, not the contributor. The fact that you have a personal animosity towards me renders any criticism of me by you moot. I'm sorry, but you obviously don't respect me, so even if you mean well, it's going to come across as a personal attack. FrozenPurpleCube 14:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As there is no material on this page that is not on the main Grünfeld page here per Elim's contribution, a simple and speedy delete and redirect to that section seems obvious. Any issues with the material there can be taken up there. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And no, I am not a member of WP:CHESS, nor of the insular chess community (whatever that is). Just an outsider. ;-) Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opinion expressed on the village pump has been brought up (along with others) in the course of this discussion and a request was made to clarify said opinion here in this debate. In a nutshell, my understanding is that chess moves are no more or less subject to standard policy/guidelines than any other topic. If it lacks sufficient reliable sources to establish N, it has no business in its own article. This article in question is nothing more than a descriptive entry of the move without said sources, and as such should be deleted. As to whether or not it shoudl be merged into the parent article, one only need take a look at the role it plays there. It can be summarized thusly: "This is a variation move. It is considered safe. This is how you do it." Still no evidence of notability. In fact, if anything it reads as mere game-guide material - instructions on how to execute the move and in what situation it is good. While WP:NOT#IINFO is usually cited in the form of "Wikipedia is not a game guide" in deletion debates against video game guides, it still applies here. This is clearly "how-to" material and should be deleted, not merged. A redirect after deletion is appropriate. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that this applies to this article (and a few like it) or to all articles about chess openings? Bubba73 (talk), 03:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It applies to all of them. I view it as a pretty simple litmus test, and that's the point I had tried to communicate on the Village Pump. If there is legitimate history, reliable sources to establish notability and something more to say about the move rather than "This is a variation of X, this is how it is done." Does it meet the minimum requirements? Then keep it. DOes it not? Then don't. Simple. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The person that proposed the deletion of this article contended that the chess articles should not include chess moves, because chess moves are "indiscriminant information". Then he stated that part of his problem with chess moves (in general) was that they were expressed in the universally-accepted algebraic chess notation. The question I asked on V.P. was that if any and all chess moves are "indiscriminant information" that should be removed, and was not about this particular article. Bubba73 (talk), 18:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's not what I'm saying, but represents a severe and continued misunderstanding on your part. I don't know how you got the idea that I don't think chess moves should not be in any articles whatsoever under any circumstances. What I do think is that articles which are simply lists of chess moves with maybe a bare inkling of strategy or importance fall under the section of WP:NOT#IINFO that covers instruction manuals and howtos. I also think it'd be helpful in those cases where an encyclopedic article can be developed to include a textual description to supplement the algebraic notation. If you continue to represent my position with this gross distortion of yours, I may be forced to assume that your doing so is deliberate and willful. Please stop. FrozenPurpleCube 19:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that is what you really meant then you should have said that the articles were not notable or that they didn't contain any information not in the bigger articles. You objected speifically to including moves, but you said that it was OK to include trivia about the openings instead of the moves. And what is this "textual description" of moves as opposed to the standard algebraic chess notation?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bubba73 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hmm, maybe you should just re-read the whole discussion over again, see if you can develop a fuller, more accurate understanding of the situation. Because honestly, that is what I've said before. And so have other people. Maybe you should contact them for further information. FrozenPurpleCube 22:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is all a bit moot, now, as the small section on this variation in the merged article has been expanded with background information, and sourced. However the argument about whether opening articles are "how-to"s is a wider one which is probably not best served at AfD.EliminatorJR Talk 23:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you want to take up the discussion up elsewhere, feel free to let folks know where. FrozenPurpleCube 23:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My name got taken in vain too, and I too am not a WP:CHESS member. However, this is again another one-move article. It seems to have arisen out of the copying of a directory of chess moves into Wikipedia. Others can decide whether it should be treated at all in the main article on the opening, but it doesn't seem to me to call for any entry in the namespace. Mangoe 03:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Sjakkalle. >Radiant< 08:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Grünfeld_4.Bf4&oldid=1137892446"