Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dallas 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The result was speedy keep per WP:SK #1 (nomination withdrawn with no "delete" opinions recorded). Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non notable local club. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. References are to primary sources or blogs. RadioFan (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - where are we going on Wikipedia? Here we have an article with some potential created by a new editor and with a whole load more sources than many/most first time pages and instead of guiding the creator we hit him with a Prod followed by an AfD within the first day. Sure it needs better sourcing but a little research shows many are available and for the USCF to say that "the Dallas Chess Club is one of the most active chess clubs in the United States" is an assessment that indicates notability. Also, how many organisations have a 12 year on its board of directors? This is not a local chess club but a large and important one within its field. TerriersFan (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Give it some time. It is pretty good for an article's first day. Bubba73 (talk), 03:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A look at Google News [1] shows that the club has received newspaper coverage even though the articles are too old for free access. In addition, at least one smaller chess club (the Oslo Chess Club) has an entry in a paper encyclopedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn - while the references in the article still need work, its clear that 3rd party sources are available to help this article meet WP:GNG.--RadioFan (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2009 (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.