Deletion of Rules of chess

Comment: The policy in question is being discussed on the talk page of 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Rules of Chess can be more than a list of the rules of the game, it can be an encyclopedic history of their development. There is much too much 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. The relevant notice from  is ''Wikipedia articles should not include instructions, advice (Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer|legal, Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer|medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. '' '''This page does not advise or instruct, but explains.''' You would gain nothing by deleting this article, for Wikipedia deserves some sort of article on the subject. It’s a convenient categorization, overview, and analysis for all the topics and pages about particular rules. Wikipedia would not be complete without a page for the rules of Chess
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: In its current state it violates ; however, if were merged with strategy and it evolves into more than rule book, it should stay. All the other rule books should be deleted also if they are plain rule books as this one is
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: I don't see how '''any''' encyclopedia would be complete without a basic article on the rules of chess.  Thus, I believe  trumps the other policy against gameguides (which should be reevaluated).  '''RJaguar3
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: Crossmr, you said, "You don't seem to disagree that it violates policy just that an exception should be made."  I can't speak for Calgary, but I ''do'' disagree that it violates policy. You are interpreting  to forbid all descriptions that are also instructions, which I think is an incorrect reading of the policy.  An encyclopedia should, first and foremost, tell you what the thing you're reading the article about ''is'', and in the case of a game like chess, the rules are a vital part of that.  The fact that you could also as a side effect learn the action of playing chess from them doesn't make them any less a vital part of understanding the concept.  You demand historical context, impact on the world, etc., and of course these are things we strive to have in every article.  But we want them ''in addition'' to the description of the subject, not ''instead'' of it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Interpreting this as a violation of  is a drastic case going by the letter of the law and not the spirit (much to the detriment of the project, I think.)  As everyone else has already said, have you ever seen an encyclopedia that ''didn't'' include the rules of chess?  Last I checked, the first thing listed at  was "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia".  The provisions against game guides and instruction manuals are meant to prevent pages like "How to get the first star in Super Mario 64" and "How to repair your weedeater", not as an excuse to remove something that's vitally important to understanding any other articles about one of the most widely-played board games in the world.  Why, exactly, anyone would like the specific wording of the constructed guidelines of Wikipedia more than the goal of making the best encyclopedia ever completely escapes me
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:FIVE)

Comment: misunderstanding of #GUIDE is at work here.  I happen to be an amateur expert at chess (see my userpage), and I can tell you that '''every major general-interest encyclopedia, including Britannica, covers the rules of chess in its article about chess'''.  Surely we don't wish to add to the  list?  Furthermore, the ''history'' of the rules of chess is a fascinating topic, one which I could devote some time to developing if the muse strikes me.  The concept of "Wikipedia is not a game guide" '''does not apply to the most basic rules of the most notable games on planet earth'''.  I can't say it any more strongly than that
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:MISSING)

Comment: deep breath...1...2...3...4...5...6...7...8...9...10'' , .  Per Shalom, per Sarregouset.  I simply can't fathom how anybody can believe that deleting this article would improve the encyclopedia.  If we have to delete either Rules of chess or  then we need to delete 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:CIVIL||WP:NOT||WP:NOT)

Comment: Incredibly important, covered in every encyclopedia I have ever had a copy of, so if  says it shouldn't be covered,  is broken
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOT)

Comment: One of the most overzealous and unhelpful interpretations of  I've ever seen and I've seen plenty. This is interpreting two words in a frequently ambiguously worded policy, and the sections on History and Controversy clearly make this not "just a game guide". And does the nominator really have to reply to ''every single editor'' recommending keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per .  Also the article is extremely notable.  Chess is a complicated game and its rules should have their own page.  I would also like to see more history of the rules in the page
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)