Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B50 (chess opening)

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 no consensus to delete it, will add {{merge}} tag as opinions are divided on the issue. — CharlotteWebb 17:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B50 (chess opening)[edit]

This article defines one of the 500 chess opening variations contained in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings. It is not a particularly unusual opening. If we will not include all 500 ECO categories (which of course we will not), we should not include even one of them. The convention on Wikipedia is, justifiably, to list openings according to their common name, such as Sicilian Defense, French Defense, and King's Gambit, among others. Each named opening covers many ECO listings. Anyone who knows what I'm talking about will almost certainly agree. YechielMan 23:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Not sure why we need an AfD debate for this. Just merge to Sicilian defense (or the sicilian dragon variation which this usually leads to). Pascal.Tesson 00:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is possible to expand it; and the whole Sicilian Defence theory is so huge today, that it is not possible to describe it in one article, so merging does not seem appropriate. In every case, we should handle all the similar articles uniformly. So the AfD should subsume all other articles of this type (they have even their own category, which should be also included in the AfD process), or be dropped. BTW the very existence of the category contradicts to the YechielMan's idea about conventions on Wikipedia... I do not see the reason why not to have one general article about Sicilian (the big picture), and then detailed articles about B50, B51 etc. --Ioannes Pragensis 09:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Pascal Tesson. No independent article needed. Jordanwaring 12:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ioannes Pragensis. The lore of chess openings is a vast subject. Classifying them is always a problem given the potential of transposition. Pretty near all of them are expandable. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er... this is a tough one. On one hand, I am not too opposed to having articles on individual ECO codes (500 is not really an unreasonable number), but this article is awfully thin, and I think information on the defining moves ought to be included in List of chess openings (it is unfortunate that the list does not include this for each code already). Merge the moves with that list unless some more content is added, then redirect to Sicilian Defence. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but it certainly needs to be expanded. Bubba73 (talk), 15:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC) I'm not against merging, but the main article on the Sicilian may grow so large that it has to be done Wikipedia:Summary style anyway, and then this would become a seperate article again. Bubba73 (talk), 23:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Pascal.Tesson since B50 is already listed in Sicilian Defense ... otherwise, we'll see articles for every variation in List of chess openings. (BTW, someone might want to check QGD; 3...Nf6, Grünfeld gambit, Nimzo-Indian, Three knights variation, and some of the other recent creations of WTHarvey, who appears to be doing just that!) --72.75.117.73 18:49, 21 September 2006 (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.