Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chess player

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 List of chess players. MelanieN (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chess player

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

Redundant article. Material is haphazard and has no coherent overall theme. All of the material is already better covered elsewhere on wikipedia, e.g. in the articles chess, List of chess players, Elo rating system, Chess in the arts, Computer chess. Article started as a redirect to List of chess players and that would seem the appropriate action now. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of chess players – agree with the nomination, particularly about having no coherent overall theme, and given all of the content is covered elsewhere I think this should be a relatively uncontroversial decision. Aspirex (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Aspirex's suggestion. The article is strangely put together and much of the existing content is better dealt with in standalone articles. /wiae /tlk 03:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - with a slight preference for redirecting to Chess rather than List of chess players. Could possibly restore the DAB version of the page, but I don't think that's really necessary and all in all I prefer a redirct. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - There is a need for an article about a "Chess Player". It answers the questions: What is a chess player? Redirecting the article to List of chess players is not answering this fundamental question for the reader. This article has the ability to expand over time, which is all that is required to keep it at Wikipedia. There should be a +tag "Keep and Expand" not delete. Many articles are linking to this article and many more will in the future. Instead of just having a list of players we should have an in-depth article. IQ125 (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@IQ125: You wrote "It answers the questions: What is a chess player? Redirecting the article to List of chess players is not answering this fundamental question for the reader." I think that objection can be addressed by adding an additional sentence at the start of List of chess players, such as "A chess player is a person who plays chess." This directs the reader to the main article on chess, which covers practically everything which is currently in Chess player, with links to more detailed information at other articles such as Elo rating system, World chess championship, and Computer chess, as well as articles about individual players. I see that you've done a lot of work on the Chess player article and I can understand your not wanting this work to be wasted, but it doesn't make sense to duplicate information which is also in these other articles. I can see a need to give the reader a sense of which players are most important in the history of chess, but the place to do that is in the main Chess article. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of chess players - Most or all of the information given here is redundant, duplicating information given elsewhere. I'd like some time to go through it and make sure nothing significant is lost by doing this. For example, I see that Abu Bakr bin Yahya al-Suli, an important early player, isn't mentioned in the main Chess article. I disagree with what IQ125 has said about there being a need for such an article, but if other articles are linking to Chess player those links need to be changed. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the article and frankly I don't see anything worth saving. For the specific example that I cited of Abu Bakr bin Yahya al-Suli, he was actually a player of shatranj rather than chess. A reader starting with Chess and wanting to know more about its origins would find a reference to Shatranj, which mentions a player named "As-Suli" with a link to the Abu Bakr bin Yahya al-Suli article (I'm not sure why there is a discrepancy between the names al-Suli and As-Suli). I've verified that the main Chess article mentions, either directly or in some cases indirectly through the World Chess Championship article, all the players and subjects mentioned in Chess player. In a few cases I found facts asserted in Chess player and not elsewhere, such as the claim that Howard Staunton was born in Westmoreland, England, but because of the lack of citations in Chess player it would be difficult to verify this information so that it can be incorporated into the other articles. If Chess player is replaced with a redirect to List of chess players the article in its current form will still be available to anyone who wants to pursue that project. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of chess players per arguments already presented. To the extent this article is about chess players, it looks to draw from content that already exists at other articles as well as tangential subjects like Elo. As chess is a game between two players, this article makes it clear that just about anything that has to do with chess could also be framed as being about chess players. All that said, I do think there's potential for an article about the archetypal chess player, drawing from demographics, psychological studies, chess players in art/literature, etc. to paint a picture of the personality/characteristics/perceptions of a chess player. But that's a different project than what's going on here now. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete or redirect though I'm concerned that have been no WP policy or guideline based reasons given for deletion, redirection, nor keep and that the arguments people are using fall into WP:ATA. I started thinking about ways to improve the article but for each improvement I saw that it would work better to improve the chess or list of chess players articles. It would also break up the flow of the main chess article to move player-oriented sections such as "Pre-modern", "Modern", "Titles and rankings", "Psychology", "Chess and intelligence", and "Competitive play" sections out of that article into this one. Chess as mental training can be merged into the article but also works well as a standalone subject referenced by the main chess article. FWIW, a search of WP articles with player in the title found rugby player, football player and player (game). None of those three gave me inspiration to keep the chess player article. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just spotted Talk:Lists of occupations/Archives/2012. It turns out WP has quite a few articles that are similar to chess player. Maybe the problem is the article does not quite have the same zip as pornographic film actor? I may reconsider my earlier delete/redirect. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marc Kupper: In terms of Wikipedia policy, WP:MERGEREASON gives "Overlap: There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap" as a reason to merge articles. However, as far as I can see, all the information in Chess player already exists in Chess or other chess-related articles, with the exception of some assertions (such as Howard Staunton's birthplace) for which no source is given. If any information currently in Chess player can be usefully moved to other chess-related articles then changing it to a redirect can be considered a merge. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberry4Ever, I'd be fine with the AFD being closed with any of the WP:MERGEREASONs available as #2, 3, and 4 all apply though weakly. #2 Overlap appears to be more about an entire article. WP allows and supports, using {{Main article}}, summarizing article content from one article in another. This article is an odd one in that it seems to be constructed entirely of summaries. I believe the question we should be asking of ourselves is if there's anything we can say about "chess player" that can't be better said in one of the other articles we have about chess? If the answer is "yes" then chess player would be a viable stand-alone subject.

In looking at WP:DEL-REASON none of them jump out as being applicable to this article. There's a weak case for WP:DEL5 (WP:CONTENTFORKING) as this article has no original content (other than Howard Staunton's birthplace). While the article fails to show that the topic passes WP:Notability I don't think WP:DEL8 would be grounds per what's documented at Chess#Psychology and Chess#Chess and intelligence plus the data supporting the Chess as mental training article. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as unlikely a better article. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 10 February 2016 (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.