Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chess strategy and tactics

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 12:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chess strategy and tactics

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Readers do not need to be told that "chess strategy and tactics" consists of "chess strategy" and "chess tactics". All this article does is fool readers into thinking Wikipedia has an article covering both together. If we ever do have an article for both of them, as Bruce has suggested, then we can bring this back. Kaotao (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:24, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no valid reason for a DAB page per WP:D2D. Chess strategy and chess tactics are clearly two separate concepts that need not be disambiguated. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not what a dab page is for. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Leftover DAB page from a 18-year-old split. Disambiguation is unnecessary as searching for 'chess strategy and tactics' returns chess strategy and chess tactics in the first three hits. Preimage (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete – Per WP:G14. Svartner (talk) 10:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Qwaiiplayer. Speedy I'm not sure about though. Conyo14 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Vedicant (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Kaotao's reasoning. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What the nomination stated in the specific I will state in the general: a disambiguation page for "X and Y" that only contains one link to "X" and another to "Y" is not only useless but actively detrimental to the encyclopaedia inasmuch as it gives the false impression that the combined topic "X and Y" has a separate article when it does not. TompaDompa (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2025 (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.