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 Speedy keep per WP:SNOWBALL. ➥the Epopt 04:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a game guide. At the very most I could see this article being turned in to a "list of chess tactics" which simply references the rest of them since many have their own articles (which I haven't read, but I hope they're more than simple descriptions and actually include history, etc of the particular concept). Crossmr 15:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Same reason I gave for strategy. Clarityfiend 17:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, this article isn't about the history of chess tactics, its an article written to teach the reader chess tactics, which is clearly against WP:NOT.--Crossmr 17:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that these articles should be merged with according articles on wikibooks, rather than deleted.Errorneous 16:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.I agree, it should be kept.Errorneous 17:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:NOT#GUIDE. While this is a notable topic, notability cannot supersede WP:NOT. WP:NOT prohibits several notable items Corpx 17:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, that is insane. You agree its a notable topic, yet still want it deleted? —Xezbeth 17:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There's plenty of notable stuff that's excluded by WP:NOT and yes, I do think we should adhere to WP:NOT policy guidelines. Corpx 19:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Perfectly valid article. —Xezbeth 17:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Based on what? Its an instruction manual, hence its not valid. Do you have some policy to reference?--Crossmr 17:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't some two-bit PC game we're talking about here, it's chess! If any game in the entire world deserves this much detail, it's this one. If there is to be any exception to WP:NOT or any other over-relied on policy, it should be these articles. —Xezbeth 17:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The notability of the topic is immaterial. If someone wants to rewrite this article to be a history of chess tactics, then I'm all for it, but if its purpose is simply to serve as a basic guide on various chess tactics then it should be moved to wikibooks, and there is a template for it which can be added to the main chess article.--Crossmr 17:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per argument for chess strategy Calgary 18:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  These are three different articles all with the same problem. Instead of encyclopedic entries on the topics, they're guides on the various concepts and instruction manuals.--Crossmr 19:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See response on chess strategy. These are three different articles which were all nominated for the same reason, and I feel feel that they should be kept for the same reason. I disagree with the nominator with the same reasoning, so to keep things simple I'm keeping my detailed responses on one AFD page. I think it's customary to group these sorts of articles together when nominating for deletion, as the reasoning is the same, and the articles are all very closely related, but as long as they're separate, my argument for one aplies to all three. Calgary 20:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If WP:NOT says this article should be deleted, WP:NOT is broken. JulesH 19:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It may be, but I dont think an AFD is the place to discuss changes to policy. Corpx 19:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:NOT#GUIDE. If the information was necessary to understanding Chess, then it would be included on the Chess page. NobutoraTakeda 21:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete even though it is a notable topic it violiates WP:NOT#GUIDE.Oysterguitarist 21:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my argument on chess strategy. Again, without an article on chess tactics, the specific articles on fork (chess), skewer (chess) and sacrifice (chess) are left out in the cold. Shalom ^Hello 22:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  That's why we have lists, categories and see also sections of articles.--Crossmr 22:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Extremely encyclopaedic subject, hundreds of books written about it, I'd be shocked if even a paper encyclopaedia didn't have at least a basic overview of the rules and strategies of chess. If WP:NOT implies that it shouldn't be here then I think this is a clear case where we should Ignore All Rules. It's not some here today, gone tomorrow video game - it's chess! Iain99 22:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  As has been pointed out, while chess is notable, its not wikipedia's place to serve as a game guide or instruction manual. We have a website for that, its called wikibooks and it should be used.--Crossmr 22:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Bubba73 (talk), 23:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC) I agree with all of the reasons for keeping the article and find the reasons given for deleting it nonsensical. Bubba73 (talk), 02:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a debate not a vote. Do you have any reasoning?--Crossmr 02:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Chess tactics is not about instructions, advice, suggestions, or "how-to"s (WP:NOT), it’s about explanation. There are many pages about specific chess tactics that are necessary to Wikipedia (1867 total, according to WP:CHESS). This page is the only place you can overview, categorize, and clarify chess tactics. There is much too much important information to be contained in a single article on Chess, which already maxes out at 77 kilobytes. As a featured article, you can’t dump the relevant information into it. And you would gain nothing by deleting this article, for Wikipedia would not be complete without a page for chess tactics. –Sarregouset (Talk) 01:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Its clearly about instruction on the various tactics. Were it simple categorization, we already have that on wikipedia, as well as lists, and see alsos.--Crossmr 02:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for some reason (slow dial up lines? old browsers that truncate?) the powers that be at WP don't like long articles; if we had didn't have that to run up against, I'd say merge with Chess, but we seem to have that limit and hacking off rules, strategy, and tactics is as efficient a way of dealing with that as any I could come up with. Carlossuarez46 02:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This appears to be a valid article about a notable subject. I find this over reliance on WP:NOT to promote a deletion to be simply one interpretation. --Stormbay 03:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Speedy Keep This is right up there with the nomination for Rock Climbing. I have two siblings who play at a high level, they both have bookcases filled with books titles "Chess tactics" and "Chess stratgies" and Wikipedia is debating deleting these articles. Here's an Amazon search of titles for this topic:
• Winning Chess Tactics, revised (Winning Chess - Everyman Chess) by Yasser Seirawan
• Chess Tactics for Students by John A. Bain
• Understanding Chess Tactics by Martin Weteschnik
• Learn Chess Tactics by John Nunn
• Chess Tactics for Champions: A step-by-step guide to using tactics and combinations the Polgar way (Chess) by Susan Polgar and Paul Truong
• Chess Tactics for Beginners by ChessCentral
• Chess Tactics for Kids by Murray Chandler
• Chess Tactics for the Tournament Player (Comprehensive Chess Course Series) (Comprehensive Chess Course, Third Level) by Sam Palatnik, Lev Alburt, and Roman Pelts
• If there are hundreds of books written on a topic can we just cut out the AfD? Chess tactics, whatever the article is about, as a topic, is about the different type of tactical methods for various goals in the midst of a strategic game of chess, it's an introductory guide to playing chess and applying tactics themselves, again, whatever the article is about. The topic is extremely notable, and has been written about for hundreds of years. Let's not create an oldogism and call chess and its strategies and tactics non-notable, making us unique among encyclopedias. KP Botany 03:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands of books have been written about chess - many more than any other game. One of the first two books printed by a printing press in English was about chess. Bubba73 (talk), 04:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, notability is not in question. What's in question is the WP:NOT violation of this being a game guide Corpx 04:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are not game guides. If you played chess these would articles would be worthless as a game guide. So, they're not what you claim they are, and they are notable, so why delete them? The section on Discovered attacks is NOT a guide to how to do a Discovered attack--read it, then go play chess with the neighborhood Grand Master and use a Discovered attack you found in this article. There isn't one, as this article isn't a game guide. KP Botany 04:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They describe various strategies, how to perform them, give examples and give opinion on the various worth. "Very powerful", "extremely useful", etc. It couldn't be anymore a game guide.--Crossmr 04:50, 16 July 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.