Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sample chess game

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 transwiki to Wikibooks. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 18:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sample chess game

Sample chess game (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I found this page while going through the old Refreshing Briliant Prose pages. THis page is full of orignal resarch and has no citations. The few claims not based on the chess board are unverified. In additon, this looks more like a guide how to teech somone how to play chess. I believe that this falls under What Wikipedia is Not, as this is an example of a game of chess which tries to shoe people the basics of the game. The Placebo Effect 13:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wikibooks and update all internal links to point there. I like it, and wouldn't want to see it nuked altogether, but I can certainly see the argument for it being original research. ~Matticus ^T_C 14:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. nice article and well put together though. if there is anywhere else to put it (wikibooks doesn't seem right) then I would strongly support putting it there --Tainter 14:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• It could be added as a chapter or subsection of Wikibooks:Chess, which is a really a beginners how-to book in itself. ~Matticus ^T_C 17:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Transwiki per Matticus. The chapter/subsection concept is valid. This AfD could probably be closed early with this as a pragmatic outcome. Fiddle Faddle 18:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki per Matticus. --- RockMFR 22:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki. Consider replacing with a notable chess game that is not an original work. - Chardish 23:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki. It's funny, I came across this article several months ago because I like reading about chess, and I thought it was fine. That being said, the rules are the rules, and it can't stay. (One significant problem is that it's a made-up game from textbook analysis, and wasn't actually played between two masters.) It could fit in Wikibooks in the context of chess. There are some real master games that are in Wikipedia and should stay there: for example, the Game of the Century and the Immortal game. However, this one need not stay. YechielMan 02:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki. WP is not a game guide. There are a couple of existing master games in WP, as noted above, and that seems appropriate. This made-up game does not belong. EdJohnston 18:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep because

• It is surely not WP:OR nor "made-up game" - most of it (perhaps except few last moves) is one of the oldest chess analyzes in existence, done by Pedro Damiano already 500 years ago and since then cited without substantial changes. The whole game is probably taken from a chess book and looks like a standard introductory text without newly researched pieces of information. In fact it is not a "game" from the today's point of view, but rather a well known trap, already repeated thousand times against unexperienced players. I personally played the first moves for White at least three times, and the result was always similar.
• This article is not a self-containig article, of course, but an important supplement to other articles. Let me allow to cite from its talk page: Some paper encyclopedias have full pages which are not mostly text: maps, or diagrams of the legislative process, or little picture galleries with examples of eight different kinds of lace, or whatever. In the more vertical (and more nonlinear) format of a web browser it makes sense to put things like this on their own pages, rather than break up the main text column with them (and they won't necessarily fit to the side of it). So not every Wikipedia page has to be exactly an "article". The page Sample chess game does not belong on Wikibooks because it is not a textbook or part of a textbook. Rather, it is a supplementary document for the encyclopedia articles Chess and Rules of chess. Such supplementary documents should probably never be given featured article status, since they are not encyclopedia articles per se (thus I oppose this nomination), but there is no good reason to delete them, or to transwiki them to other Wiki projects whose stated criteria they are equally unsuitable for, either. (If anyone wants to get gung-ho about every Wikipedia page being an article per se, rather than some pages serving subsidiary functions, they will have to delete or transwiki all "List of" and "Timeline of" pages, to begin with.) DanielCristofani 09:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Regarding YechielMan's idea to replace the game with a well known master game: In my opinion it is better not to overload the excellent master games with comments for beginners. I think that this old trap, repeated thousand times against unexperienced Black players, is well chosen for the purpose.--Ioannes Pragensis 19:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• My opposition to keeping it rests with the original research problem. Providing reliable sources would remove that problem. If the article were trimmed down and sourced, it could be saved. Here are two sources: 1, and 2. YechielMan 19:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• A few article have links to wikibooks. I don't see how moving it their would be a problem. The only problem I have with this page is that it is not sourced and doesn't seem like something that should belong in any encyclopedia. The Placebo Effect 21:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This is just as much an example of what you can and should to do IF someone plays the opening. I feel that the source is stated, it's not going to be found at master level because it is known not to play that. It isn't in many books because the same can be said. Just because it doesn't fit like most articles/example on chess is because black has very limited amount of possiblities. It is still a very accurate and detailed example of how white must play to effectively get a checkmate without black balancing out. I vote to keep this article. I am teaching chess to children and beginners and there just isn't other sources out there that have this information. It is not a sample of any chess game that I'd want to play as black. It is obvious to even a beginner chess player that it isn't inaccurate. I vote to keep this article (not delete it completely) and allow it to be edited as needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.18.144.101 (talk) 31 Jan 2006.

• Transwiki per Matticus. Jacroe | Talk 15:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. My 'Transwiki' vote is already entered above. Those who are wondering if Wikibooks is really a good place to go for chess information should look at [1]. That page has nothing yet for the Damiano Gambit. Any links to the present article could be converted into links to the transwikied version at Wikibooks. One enhancement I would suggest is to explain that the Black moves in the present article are a terrible choice. Since the Damiano Gambit is a strategy for Black, he should at least play his best moves. I'm sure the article could be enhanced to point this out. EdJohnston 23:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep I think this could serve as a good example for (real use of) several chess terms. --Kompik 15:37, 3 February 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.