Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oklahoma Scholastic Chess Organization

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. Dakota 12:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a local chess organization with no claim to notability, and probably an agenda to promote its own website. Out it goes. YechielMan 00:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NOT a directory, and unless the organization is notable for some other reason, I recommend that the article be deleted. --Alan Au 01:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete organizing scholastic chess tournaments is hardly a strong claim of notability. -Elmer Clark 01:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not local but state-wide. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nonnotable. As a group, it needs to have actually done something notable. The fact that it is statewide is nice, but the article needs to establish a level of activity that brings it into greater prominence. NTK 03:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing especially interesting about it, and there are many similar ones. The only reason for keeping would be for the goal of "sum of all human knowlege", which is a stated goal of WP. Bubba73 (talk), 15:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable.UberCryxic 15:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What are the notability criteria for chess organisations? Unless or until we establish such criteria, I suggest keeping all such articles, to avoid having to recreate them once such criteria are established. Wiki not paper, sum of human knowedge et al.. Jcuk 20:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think WP:ORG would suffice to cover this discussion, no? Metros232 13:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; I also think Elmer put my argument quite succinctly. -- Kicking222 23:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Prolog 12:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In the absence of guidelines, notability would have to be demonstrated... it isn't. --Dweller 10:52, 26 September 2006 (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.