Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Classical Slav


 * 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The Classical Slav

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a notable chess book – no significant coverage beyond a couple of book reviews. Virtually any book put out by a mainstream chess publisher receives a similar level of attention. No book awards won either. It's a good book but so is the entire Grandmaster Repertoire series published by Quality Chess – this particular volume doesn't stand out in any way. Cobblet (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge - incorporate any relevant info into Boris Avrukh. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge - I agree. No standout notability over and above a large number of other books, unless it received accolades in the press and/or won 'book of the year' prizes. Regular praiseworthy reviews would be insufficient in my opinion. Brittle heaven (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 02:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 02:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete without redirect - Delete because it fails WP:NBOOK and its claim to notability is praise in an online store description, not a published review. No merge because there's nothing to merge (the book is already mentioned at the Avrukh article). No redirect because chess openings are often capitalized so the main topic would be the "Classical Slav" (even though that's not technically the name of an opening, as far as I know, it's also common to add "Classical" to older lines that have been updated). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 02:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete without any merge or redirect. What would you merge it into?  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete without merge or redirect. This sort of thing is mentioned in the relevant players own article typically. This article will never be substantial. Jkmaskell (talk) 09:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.