Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bearsden Chess Club

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bearsden Chess Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This was previously prod'ed by someone else, but I see no evidence that the standards of WP:ORG have been met, or that there are reliable, third-party sources for this club. FrozenPurpleCube 00:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as possible hoax. Parenthetically, I can't believe there's actually a page for the year 2037 as non-notable chess club, due to lack of reliable sources and lack of GHits. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the page previously said 1966, so I'll assume that the 2037 is just vandalism, and prefer to concentrate on the notability of the subject instead. That's the real problem here. There's no third party coverage of this club outside of a few directory links. FrozenPurpleCube 01:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable organisation. WATP  ^(talk) • _(contribs) 01:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vandalism aside, seems to be a nn club. Lankiveil 05:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete Looks pretty clear its a small community organisation. Needs more than 48 members and one record to be notable Guycalledryan 08:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If notable, there is nothing to prove it - no sourcing at all. JodyB _talk 12:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No evidence that WP:ORG has been met. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 16:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Bearsden and redirect there; non notable by itself, but deserves a short mention there.--Ioannes Pragensis 19:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, looking at Bearsden I'm dubious about that "Things to do" section, let alone the idea of merging this there. Seems more like something for a travel guide than an encyclopedia. Thanks for pointing that out. FrozenPurpleCube 22:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• weak merge o/w delete. Agree with Pragensis.—Gaff ^ταλκ 22:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. GreenJoe 22:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, seems to be notable, but there are no third-party sources to back up the information. *Cremepuff222* 23:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - their history could render them notable as an organization but there seems no verification here. Maybe a weak keep if there could be improvement of the article's verified content. Agnetha1234 15:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. Elrith 23:52, 22 May 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.