Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chess diagram

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chess diagram

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability as a stand alone subject. It just describes what a diagram is. No WP:reliable sources. Prod disputed without rationale. noq (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources. I know "not much to say on the topic" is not a WP policy, but the information could be put in the article on chess or one on learning chess in one or two sentences. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is easy to find sources which talk about such diagrams in detail. For example, see Resemblance and Representation. The worst case would be merger into another page such as chess notation. Please see alternatives to deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a book about diagrams in general and chess diagrams are used to illustrate a point. Is it significant coverage of Chess diagrams themselves? noq (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a sufficiently distinct and describable sub-topic related to chess, and it complements chess notation and chess problem well enough. Needs improvement, obviously. Aspirex (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is is sufficiently distinct? What makes it worth it's own article? How much can be written about it other than a definition? noq (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the reference to WP:Definition as relevant here; there is plenty that can be detailed about the history, usage and conventions around chess diagrams that goes well beyond what would be found in a dictionary. Aspirex (talk) 06:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has its own entry in The Oxford Companion to Chess, by Hooper and Whyld, page 108, the most authoritative encyclopedia of chess. (I added that under Further reading.) Other books undoubtedly discuss it too. This is something people need to know, so at worst, merge it into Chess notation. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A merge to Chess notation makes sense to me. Chess diagrams are already mentioned there.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm the guy who removed the PROD "without rationale", as any wikipedian is perfectly entitled to do. I think from the point of view of the different fonts that have been used for chess diagrams this is potentially a notable topic, however sources are scarce. (If they exist they are probably not on the internet). See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chess#Chess_diagram. I would not object to a merger with Chess notation. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Valid subarticle. Chess is 1,500 years old, so there is most definitely information for this article. Esquivalience ^t 02:13, 19 December 2015 (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.