Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paris Defence

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. It's a bit peculiar to close this as keep, as nobody in this AfD actually argues to keep directly. There is consensus to merge here, but it is unclear if this should be merged to Philidor or Italian game. Where to merge exactly is not an issue for AfD, but rather for the articles talk page, and can be done through normal editing. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Defence

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

Delete Firstly, this article fails in terms of notability. It's a small side-move which isn't even part of the Italian Game; it can easily transpose into a standard Philidor after 4. d4. As such, it's an even an "opening" at all, just a move-order. We don't need an entire page devoted to it. It also fails in terms of references; search for "Paris Defence" in any standard opening reference (Encyclopedia of Chess Openings (ECO), Modern Chess Openings (MCO), etc) and you will find nothing. There isn't even an ECO code given, standard for openings. (Nor does one exist!) In fact, the only reference given, a generic link to the online site chessgames.com with that move order, does not even call it "the Paris Defence". Thus, it warrants deletion. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 04:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the replies by other members, I would be equally fine with a Merge and Redirect instead.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Equally fine"?? Make up your mind. Your vote stands as DELETE. To quote the Warden, "Delete and Merge/Redirect are mutually exclusive." You proposed delete. Are you changing your proposal?? Make it clear. Find some dignity. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC) p.s. BTW, by "other members", do you mean ProjChess members? (If so, I am not a member, I withdrew—because of you and your slanderous fabrication about me, which you got away with at ANI.) Have a nice day. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC) p.p.s. (Transposition to) PHILIDOR!! (Amazing.)[reply]
Comment It is in The Oxford Companion to Chess, opening #936 in the second edition. There is a small entry on it "The semi-Italian opening, which has similar ideas to the Philidor Defense." And that's all. It is real and covered in a reliable source, but it is so minor that I don't think it merits an article either, so ~~Delete~~ Merge and redirect. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In my old edition of the ECO, in C50, line 1, note 1 to Black's third move, the move 3...d6 is listed and it says to see C41/2. That is a line of the Philidor, with Black's second and third move transposed. ECO doesn't give the "Paris Defense" name, though. (Based on my notes in the ECO, I must have played the white side of this in a correspondence game.) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect- If it's shown to be available in one reference (even trivially), it's likely in other publications, and therefore a valid search term. Merge & Redirect if a viable destination can be determined. Dru of Id (talk) 06:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Italian Game. For a source, Pandolfini makes mention of it here [1] --SubSeven (talk) 07:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect It seems to be a important thing may be very minor. but definitely should not be totally deleted. merge it with Italian Game.--Dude7190 (talk) 12:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The opening *is* called the "Paris Defence" in book Batsford Chess Openings by Gary Kasparov and Raymond Keene, American Chess Promotions, 1982, pp. 308-09. Also, the line was introduced by Alekhine, acc. Horowitz, Chess Openings:Theory and Practice, Simon and Schuster, 1964, pp. 40-41, where it is called the "Lesser" or "Half" Giuoco Piano. Further, 3...d6 is not some isolated, unnoteworthy "move", it is a form of Hungarian Defence based on early ...Bg4: "3...d6. Tried by Alekhine early in his career. The intention is to play a Hungarian Defence with ...Bg4 early on, fighting for d4." T. D. Harding, G. S. Botterill, The Italian Game, B. T. Batsford Limited, London, pp. 129-30. There is a game Rodzinski–Alekhine, Paris 1913. (Perhaps that is how it received name "Paris Defence"!? The game is quoted in full in both BCO and The Italian Game.) Harding & Botterill consider the line "one of two forms of the modest Hungarian Defence" and analyze 4.c3 (main line) as well as 4.d4, and 4.h3. There's analysis by Tartakower, Sozin, Evans, and Keres included. The Paris game ends in mate after 15 moves (guess who won). The line is one of several Black 3rd move options "in which Black may try to evade the Italian Game" acc. Harding & Bottterill (but, the def of Italian Game on WP seems to be after 3.Bc4). Subchapters include the Hungarian Defence proper (3...Be7), 3...d6 (as above), 3...g6, 3...Nd4, 3...f5 (a "delayed form of Latvian Counter-Gambit"), plus Unzicker analysis on move 3...Qf6?!. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rodzinski–Alekhine, Paris 1913
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 d6 4.c3 Bg4 5.Qb3!? (5.d4 Qe7 6.Be3 is better, as it looks too risky for Black to 'win' the e-pawn. Instead, after 6...Nf6 7.Qb3 Nd8 8.Nbd2 g6 9.dxe5, White stood somewhat better in Levelfish–Tolush, Leningrad 1939) 5...Qd7 6.Ng5 (6.Bxf7+ is the better move, analyzed by Sozin and leading to 15.Kf1=) Nh6 7.Nxf7 Nxf7 8.Bxf7+ Qxf7 9.Qxb7 Kd7 10.Qxa8 Qc4 11.f3 Bxf3! 12.gxf3 Nd4 13.d3? (13.cxd4 Qxc1+ −/+) Qxd3 14.cxd4 Be7 15.Qxh8 Bh4# 0–1

Delete as it is our policy that Wikipedia is not a guide to game strategy. Warden (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Curious about your logic. How is an article on this opening different from any other openings article? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Detailed opening theory is training or game guide material. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to walk players through the moves of games. All such articles are therefore inappropriate. Warden (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - There must be hundreds and hundreds of openings articles on WP meeting that criteria. Games articles also always have move commentary. (They should all be deleted?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - There are hundreds and hundreds of articles deleted every day. They all have their fans but so it goes. Warden (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for clarifying your view. (Was curious, especially since your User suggests more inclusionist than deletionist.) Thx again. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Italian game. SyG (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about redirecting. Two books I consulted consider this a branch of the Philidor Defense. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2012 (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.