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 (redirect recommended). Nabla 03:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D59 (chess opening)[edit]

D59 (chess opening) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I am renominating this page for deletion after the closure of a previous bundled nomination in this discussion where several editors indicated they wished the opportunity to individually considered. Since this page is nothing more than recounting of a particular chess opening, with no indication of any notability beyond that, I believe it violates WP:NOT#IINFO which is against instruction manuals. The article itself claims the analysis is on another page, Queen's Gambit Declined which really says nothing substantial more about it than it is a solid continuation. As there are literally thousands, if not tens of thousands of named and defined Chess openings, that isn't enough notability on its own. Thus I recommend it be deleted. Apologies if anybody considers this premature, but I am nominating this one article for consideration because it did receive some support for deletion and I think the previous bundled nomination was obvious a factor in it being kept. FrozenPurpleCube 19:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No assertion of being any more notable than the thousands of other chess openings. Adambro 19:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Queen's Gambit Declined#Main variations. No harm in the redirect. The D59 means it has a name in MCO, which gives it some minor status, at least enough for a redirect. Also, this was an opening played in the Spassky-Fischer match. Mangojuice^talk 20:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just so you know, there's a link at D59 already. FrozenPurpleCube 20:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mango, I think you mean ECO. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to the appropriate opening. YechielMan 00:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete like I recommended for this particular article last time. An article which just defines the moves of a chapter in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings, giving nothing on the basic strategy, is not viable. A redirect to QGD could work and wouldn't harm anything, but it's a highly unlikely search term. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per User:Mangojuice --ALL IN (u t c m l ) 17:04, 24 April 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.