![[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]](images/stone-hello.png "Sensei's Library")
I'm inclined the proposed deletion, but I understand the need for the term.
In essence, Go pedants have given us the excellent technical terms "string" and "chain" to describe a, um, aggregation of stones that pool liberties. This is valuable because in strategic discussions, we use "group" for virtually no other purpose, so we need another word for stones that pool liberties. Nonetheless, people persist in describing the stone-pooling aggregates as "groups"! So I can see why someone thought this page would be useful. Perhaps this should be relegated to a sub-section of the group page?
This also makes me curious how Chinese, Japanese and Korean deal with the string/group vocabulary problem.
"Nonetheless, people persist in describing the stone-pooling aggregates as "groups"!"
Do they? I mean some chains/strings simply are groups - but I can't recall coming across someone calling a chain a group. And if that happens, pages like this encourage the misunderstanding because the qualifier "strategic" insinuates there is another kind of group when there is none.
There are many abuses of group in the meaning of string, however, this is a topic other than classifying different types of groups (aka sets of stones considered for particular intentions). A note on the group page might suffice, but pretending non-existence of different types of groups is ignorance of (slightly advanced) go theory.
I've turned this into an alias for group and added a note there about the difference with chains.