Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QGD; Semi-Slav 5.Bg5 dxc4

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 merge with Semi-Slav Defence. Yes, I know I participated in this debate, but I am closing this anyway because there seems to be reasonable agreement that merging is a good option, and merging chess articles with chess notation and analysis is pretty difficult if one is not a chess player. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] QGD; Semi-Slav 5.Bg5 dxc4

I make the same point here as for B50 (chess opening) - the variation is too minor, and if you won't keep all 500 openings of ECO, keep none. If the article isn't deleted, it could be renamed as D44 (chess opening), or better, merged into Semi Slav Defense. YechielMan 00:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Clearly YechielMan knows what he is talking about. Have the major categories of openings written up under their common names, don't include any of the ECO opening variations. NTK 03:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Would this not also qualify as being a game guide? Resolute 04:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• There's information here that isn't in Semi Slav Defense, and the nominator actually explains that xyr problem with the article can be solved by hitting the "move" tab and then the "edit" tab, to rename the article to D44 and then merge it into Semi Slav Defense. Therefore: Per the nomination, keep, and do the things that ordinary editors can do without administrators having to delete anything or even be involved in the process. I remind editors of the "minor branch of a subject" part of Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem_articles_where_deletion_may_not_be_needed. Uncle G 08:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the theory of chess is huge today and I suspect that YechielMan DOES NOT know what he is talking about here. It is better to have one general article about Semi Slav, and then detailed articles about the branches. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, it can contain millions of articles. And this is not a minor variation - Chessgames.com have more than 600 master games played with this opening. --Ioannes Pragensis 09:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect into Semi Slav Defense and redirect D44 to the same place. Separating it into this article is not a suitable way to go about it. Mgm|^(talk) 12:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ioannes Pragensis. The analysis of chess openings is deep enough to support encyclopedic articles about these and similar lines of play. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Semi-Slav Defense. That article could still use some analysis. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, since it has its own ECO code. As an alternative, merge with Semi-Slav Defense. Bubba73 (talk), 15:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC) I have changed my mind to merge with Semi-Slav Defense. Bubba73 (talk), 23:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per Uncle G since D44 is already listed in Semi-Slav Defense as the Anti-Meran Gambit ... 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 18:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Semi Slav Defense. I think we should have information about all 500 openings of ECO, although the nom is probably right that this variation is too minor to have its own article. Wmahan. 21:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Yes the theory is huge + Everyone loves the D44. Its such a beautiful complex opening. We should instead work to have a page on all the notable ECO codes.

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.