Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford University Chess Club

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 keep. In light of the nominator's detailed criticism of the added sources, I am tagging the article with {{refimprove}} so that issues of reliability and independence may be addressed. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's note: Two issues came up in this discussion that I feel I should say something about. First, it is generally unproductive to question whether a nomination was made in good faith, except in the most obvious cases of bad-faith disruption. The intentions of the nominator have no influence on the quality of the article, which is what matters most. In this case, I believe the nomination was made in good faith and that the nominator presented a strong and detailed challenge of the article.
Second, the presence of third-party publications about a source is, in a strict sense, neither sufficient nor necessary for the source to be deemed reliable. There may be much written about a notoriously unreliable publisher (e.g., a notable propaganda website) and little written about a reliable one (e.g., a highly specialised peer-reviewed academic journal). That a source is itself the subject of reliable third-party publications attests to its notability, but not necessarily its reliability. Also, at any fixed point in time, the presence of publications about a source is a static characteristic, whereas the reliability of a source is dynamic and depends on context. A static characteristic cannot account for a dynamic property. A source that "is reliable in one topic may not be in another." (quoted from Wikipedia:Reliable sources) -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Chess Club

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

I've looked for third-party sources providing non-trivial coverage about this chess club, but I can't find any. Lacking those third-party sources giving it significant coverage, I don't think it passes the standards of WP:ORG. Oxford University has a long history, and a lot of clubs. I don't feel they all merit articles. FrozenPurpleCube 18:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep The reason that the current article does not have enough notable citation is that we have been rather lax in editing the page. If given the opportunity, we shall do so. As for notable press coverage of the club, the Chessbase article was written by Olena Boytsun, a current player, but also a journalist for Chessbase (one of the world's leading sources of chess information) for many years. The annual Varsity match is covered by all of the most salient newspapers in Britain, such as the Times (Raymone Keene wrote an article), the Guardian (Leonard Barden wrote an article immediately following the event), and the Telegraph, as well as all of the chess journalism publications, such as BCM, BCF, London Chess Centre's The Week in Chess, etc. Raymond Keene, the chess author, is currently writing a book on the history of the clubs, and the rivalry in the Varsity match (announced at the Varsity dinner in 2005). Given the age, history, and current activity in the club, as well as being of special interest to chess players in the UK, it is difficult to understand the proposal to delete this page. I would be happy to personally augment the information on the page, and show its current relevance, if that is required to maintain the posting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.208.138 (talk • contribs)
Well, laxness in writing an article is a common event. But the fact is, you've had months to do anything since you last edited it. Adding better sources is a good thing, and if you can indeed produce ones from the Times and the Guardian, that would at least establish notability for the match, which would probably help out the club enough for me to concur with keeping it. They would certainly be a lot better than the existing ones. For example, you say Chessbase is one of the world's leading sources of chess information. But that's your opinion as an anonymous IP. It would be better to find someone in a reliable source saying that. And of course, it would be nice to find more specifically on the club. Oh, and btw, you may wish to sign your posts using ~~~~ and add your comments to the end of the discussion, not the beginning. I'd move it, but since I didn't notice it till now, I'm not sure of the proper place. FrozenPurpleCube 02:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the keeping of that article doesn't make this one worth keeping. See WP:WAX. If anything, I'd say that the closure of keep there was mistaken. I'll renominate. FrozenPurpleCube 19:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, one can also object to a previous proceeding, especially if it's not relevant, or invalid. In this case, I'd say so, so I renominated it. FrozenPurpleCube 01:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reference to that club was slightly flippant, as it was my nomination (I still think it's NN). However, I think the Chess Club has somewhat more notability, as mentioned below. However, it's definitely borderline, hence the 'weak' in my 'keep'. EliminatorJR Talk 19:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if this club does indeed have some notability, the way to demonstrate that is sources, not frivolous comparisons to subjects of unrelated (and frankly dubious) notability. Sorry, but that argument has long been known to be flawed. Best not to make it. FrozenPurpleCube 19:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it is allowed to refer to other AfDs. However, you should provide some more detail as to why the same reasoning applies as for the other article. Cite the arguments, not the mere AfD result. (Hopefully legal courts would do so, too. But I'm not a lawyer.) --B. Wolterding 19:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did point out one source above. Here's a couple more [1] [2]. THe second one is especially useful, and I've added it into the article. Are they enough? That's for other editors to decide. EliminatorJR Talk 19:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, these sources may all be of doubtable value; cf. WP:SPS. I was more looking for references in published books, giving detailed coverage of the history of the club, or press coverage in reputable sources, or the like. It's not so much the question whether the club exists (that might be proven by the sources you provide, but that's not an issue), We rather need sources to support its notability. See WP:ORG for inclusion criteria. --B. Wolterding 19:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I saw that myself, and for the reasons B. Wolterding mentioned, I'm doubtful about using it. All it really means is that she wanted to write about her club, and chessbase.com is hosting the content. What journalistic standards do they meet? Have they won any awards for their coverage? Can't see anything about that on Chessbase which needs third-party references of its own. FrozenPurpleCube 19:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting ridiculous; ChessBase is /the/ leading source for news in chess and renowned for its reliability (and if you don't believe me ask any GM). BlueValour 19:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but personal inquiries are not reliable sources. I could have Gary Kasparov setting right next to me, I wouldn't use that to claim I have a better source. Perhaps that's where your confusion lies, instead of asserting things you personally know to be true, you should be looking for other, established sources that say it. See, the thing is, the rest of us don't know you from Adam, so how can we rely on what you're saying? the Essjay controversy exposed the weaknesses in that. FrozenPurpleCube 20:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm - Chessbase is one of the UK's premier chess websites, so I doubt if they'd source anything dubious (that'd be like disavowing an article about George Bush in the New York Times that happened to written by a politician!), and Olimpbase equally so for team chess, so no chance of WP:SPS there. Having said that, there must be non-web sources too, though - I'll have a look. EliminatorJR Talk 19:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are? Says who? Mark Weeks on about.com? That's not quite a Webby award. FrozenPurpleCube 20:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - this club has had an important role in the development of chess in the UK, as can be seen from the long list of notable former members, and is notable as the oldest university chess club in the UK. Chess clubs consist of their members so notable members are a fair criteria for notability. BlueValour 18:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If said role is indeed true, provide some sources for it. Your assertion of such isn't convincing. FrozenPurpleCube 19:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is self-evidently the case from the list of former members and the games they have played while there. BlueValour 20:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:OR and WP:V. FrozenPurpleCube 20:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there consensus for notable people simply being members of a club or organization establishing the notability of the club itself? I don't think so, and I think it's a bad idea. Whether a club or organization should have an article would depend on the club's own existence, not the loose association here. (Which doesn't even consider whether or not the persons are notable in a way related to the membership). In any case, I don't see references for most of the claimed memberships. Some of the articles don't mention this club at all, or even Oxford. Others have no references whatsoever. I would at least expect that to be fixed. FrozenPurpleCube 21:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I once saw a book on Cambridge University Chess Club. Would that count? :-) Seriously, the two clubs are notable for contesting The Varsity Match (first played in 1871), and there were periods in their histories when they had many notable players. Probably enough for two short articles, and there will be histories out there that cover them. Here is a list of chess club history booklets (of varying authority and notability: "Some of them are very small; others are substantial (100 pages plus)."): see here. The ones relevant to this debate are: Eales, R[ichard] G., Cambridge Chess (Sutton Coldfield, 1978) and Walker, J[ames] M[anders], The history of the Oxford University Chess Club, compiled from the Club Minute Books, by J. M. Walker, formerly President of the Club (Oxford, 1885). Hope that helps people get an idea of what is out there. Carcharoth 21:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the mere claim that you once saw a book doesn't tell us anything about the book, and the Chess history book you reference is a compilation of minutes by the chess club's president. That's not exactly a good argument for notability, absent some show of wider references for the book itself, seeing how it's not a third-party source. And given that it's from 1885 according to that page, hmm, not too useful as a reference for the rest of the club's history. If this Varsity Match is so significant, perhaps more coverage of it can be found. FrozenPurpleCube 21:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see the smiley I added after that comment? :-) Like that. Anyway, I didn't make it clear, but the Eales book I referred to later was the Cambridge University Chess Club one (I've now bolded it above for your convenience), and I lied, I've actually read the book (it is fairly comprehensive and goes into some detail) and it has been recently republished. I think I will order it and then do a short article on the Cambridge club. Given the legendary rivalry between the two universities, that should make the Oxford club very happy. Carcharoth 22:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suggest you try to find other indicators of notability and references besides a single book. FrozenPurpleCube 22:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it, it is plainly equally notable and will fill a gap in UK chess history. BlueValour 01:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you mean Lord Randolph Churchill however, while that man is notable, does that mean everything he does is? FrozenPurpleCube 02:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Some useful thoughts, thank you. However, a merge into Oxford University is not viable since it would look out of place in that article and the amount of material would unbalance it. I cannot imagine that the editors of that article would tolerate this. There are several fairly short articles on University sports and societies and there is a case to be made for combining them into one large article. However, that is a discussion for the main article talk page, not here. BlueValour 17:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Well, speaking for myself, I'm still not convinced of its notability because there's still really not that much said about the club in any of the sources I could find. Not to mention several of the sources currently used aren't independent, and others may not be reliable. I'll review them:
  1. ^ a b "The Oxford-Cambridge Varsity history", OlimpBase - Encyclopaedia of Team Chess
  • Says "/ Prepared by Bob Wade, taken from Oxford University Chess Club site /" which makes for dubious independence, as it wasn't even written from start, but adapted from their own material. This may not be a press-release, but it's borderline close.
  2. ^ "Chess Trivia", Logical Chess
  • Random collation of Chess trivia sourced from a personal website, originally at geocities, but replaced with this copy here as if obfuscating the source somehow made it better. It really doesn't. It just convinces me that the person who did it didn't realize their mistake on using an unreliable source in the first place. The information itself isn't that objectionable, but I am not impressed by the attempted fix.
  3. ^ a b Official site
  • Obviously not independent, but I suppose reliable enough.
  4. ^ 1869-1885 in The History of the Oxford University Chess Club, James Manders Walker, 1885
  • Book produced by the then president of the Chess club. May be reliable, but isn't all that independent. And let's face it, the book isn't that useful for covering most of the club's history.
  5. ^ "Oxford vs Cambridge vol. 125 – the never ending game", ChessBase, 16 May 2007
  • Well, the site may be good (though its own article doesn't even have third-party sources for it), but the article was written by a club member. And I'd still like some demonstration that Chessbase is a reliable source by providing coverage in third-party sources.
  6. ^ ""Cambridge Chess", Richard Geoffrey Eales, ISBN 9780903500241
  • Well, this seems good, till you realize Hardinge Simpole Limited is a 5 year old small-press and the book is only 105 pages long. Stephen Ambrose this is not. Plus it's on Cambridge's club.
  7. ^ "Oxford v Cambridge", Mind sports Worldwide, 4 March 2000
  • Well, the Mind Sports Organisation has a wikipedia article, but um...no sources on it! I'm not sure it should have an article at all, but I'm reluctant to tag it for deletion since I'm afraid I'll be accused of misconduct.
  8. ^ Bird, Henry, Chess History and Reminiscences
  • A discourse on the history of Chess. This would be the best source, but it's coverage of the club itself? A few mentions, but nothing I'd call substantial.
  9. ^ Potter, W. N., ed. (1875), The City of London Chess Magazine, London: W. W. Morgan, at 71–73
  • A magazine that last 2 years, and if published today, would probably be a fanzine? Pardon me for not being too highly impressed. Doesn't the London Times have an archive?
 10. ^ CHESS, February 1945, page 73
  • CHESS magazine is a decent source, probably the best one here. Pity the coverage is only used for one thing. If somebody could find an article on the history of this club in the magazine, it'd probably be more convincing than this singular use. I wonder if they have a collection of their magazines on CD-ROM or anything.
 11. ^ Big Database 2005, ChessBase
  • See above concerns about Chess base.
 12. ^ "2004-05 ODCL", Oxfordshire Chess Association
 13. ^ "2006-07 ODCL", Oxfordshire Chess Association

The website of the association for which they are a member, no evidence that the championship itself is covered by third-party sources. Pages themselves aren't doing much more than listing the results. 

 14. ^ Opening Encyclopaedia 2004, ChessBase
  • See above.
 15. ^ Killer Grob, Michael Basman, Pergamon Chess Series, 1991, ISBN 9780080371306
  • Not a book on the club, so that's going to move the coverage to trivial. As to how you rate the book, or the series? I dunno, I can't find a site for the publisher, they may not exist anymore, they may not have a website. But let's face it, his concern wasn't the club, it was the opening.
Now I hope I don't seem like I'm attacking anybody, but frankly, the level of sources is not that great an improvement, and the article itself isn't doing a great deal better than it was before I nominated it. Just yesterday, I added an {{expand}} tag to request the history section be expanded. Result? History section obfuscated with a renaming. That's not what I call an improvement. Maybe I'm wrong, and this article can make it to featured status, but it needs work, and it needs better sources. It's probably not a deletion issue now, but it's still in serious need of cleanup, and that includes better sources. FrozenPurpleCube 01:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notability established. Unlike the other clubs up for deletion this article has been sourced and expanded to demonstrate notability. Nearly 140 years of history, oldest university chess club in the country, participant in the oldest chess fixture in the world, helped to develop a string of notable players. BTW ChessBase is not only reliable it is a primary source - a reference on ChessBase helps with notability of other organisations. It has daily editions in English, German and Spanish and all the leading GMs have contributed at one time or another. To give an example of its status Kramnik chose ChessBase for a most important interview, here. Bridgeplayer 19:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I don't think your definition of a primary source is quite accurate, but in any case, I'm not convinced that you've demonstrated that Chessbase is reliable, or a good source. It's certainly not best for that to be based only on their own statements or for that matter, yours. Instead, third-party coverage of them would be the way to demonstrate the notability and reliability of the organization. Not by saying they interviewed the World Champion at a Chess match. Not unless that interview itself received major coverage. FrozenPurpleCube 01:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I accept the sources as sufficient and to show notability. The nom. has said at another AfD in response to a query about apparently indiscriminate nomination, that he is only nominating some of the Oxford & Cambridge clubs for deletion. But this is an clearly notable one--so I continue to wonder at the specialized deletion. DGG 04:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you wondering? What questions do you have of my motivations? Seriously, if you're going to be suspicious of me, why not give me a chance to explain myself? Are you saying these nominations are in bad faith? Would you prefer it if I mass tagged every single unreferenced article on a club and association that I found? What would you have me do instead? Or do you think it's not a problem that these articles exist in an unreferenced and ill-considered state? FrozenPurpleCube 06:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm distressed that I explained myself so poorly that you could think this was what I meant. What I meant was, you have perhaps gotten slightly too over-involved and instead of the truly dubious bottom quartile, and the debatable next one up, you're getting some of the next quartile, the ones that are over the middle and probably notable. This is why I think you should step back and re-examine if you've seen the boundary line in the wrong place. I don't consider saying that over-personal--I have been known to go over the mark, in both directions, and though I'm not exactly happy when people tell me, I back off. What I'd have us do with these articles is delete the hopeless and improve the others, accepting that not everything that needs deleting will get deleted, and not everything will get fixed as well as it could. DGG 08:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at this page when I first nominated it. Not one single source on it except their own website. I searched myself and found zero substantial sources on it. Thus I'm not worried at all that my AFD was improper. I did my homework, and checked the relevant criteria. The results here have not significantly changed that. (See my examination of the sources above.) Perhaps there are better resources out there, but I hope this article doesn't remain in its current state. It might be enough to make it through AFD, but it's nowhere near done. FrozenPurpleCube 14:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG & several others Johnbod 00:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In my view the article was sufficient to merit a keep before it was nominated due to the factors other AFD participants mentioned earlier: age of the club, well-known figures in the club history as founders, president, and players, and the long-term rivalry with Cambridge. I find the nominator's contention that the article hasn't been significantly improved to be incredible, as I think substantial improvement is plainly apparent to anyone and the page now easily merits a keep decision. Although I agree with the nominator's concerns about the 2nd source (originally from a geocities page), overall I don't find much merit in the complaints about the quality of the sources or the article. The weakest is the critique of the 6th source, Cambridge University Chess. Here we learn that a WikiPedia article source is discounted if the book was published by a small, young publishing house. Of course this seems good until you realise that Hardinge Simpole Limited is a reprint publisher, and this is a 2003 reprint of a 1978 book published by Sutton Coldfield, Eng. : Chess Ltd. I think the original publisher was small too, but I'll let someone else worry about that. The other complaints are that the entire book isn't devoted to the Oxford University Chess Club, and anyhow it's only 105 pages. I probably shouldn't mention this, but it looks like the original was only 90 pages. (I don't know if the reprint was brought up to date, if extra material was added (preface, addendum, etc.), or if the difference in page counts is spurious.) To sum up, according to the nominator, no subject should have a WikiPedia page unless it has been the main subject of a book by a major, well-established publishing house, and that book is over 105 pages long. Oh, and we need multiple sources, so make that at least two books. I find it impossible to take criticism of this nature seriously. Quale 01:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes, the quality of the publisher is something that can determine the reliability of a source. Why? Because a major publisher can employ fact-checkers and an editor, as well as demonstrate the relative demand for a book. But please don't put words in my mouth, I'm not saying only major well-established publishing houses are necessary, I'm expressing the quite valid concern that not all books are created equal. Do you think there's something wrong with that? Has this book been the subject of reviews by other reliable sources? Been on any best-seller lists? Or the author? Believe it or not, almost anybody can get a book published somewhere, so a book itself isn't a demonstrator of quality. If you don't believe me, feel free to ask on the Village Pump, or at WP:V or WP:RS. See what others think. FrozenPurpleCube 02:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if you truly believe the article has significantly improved, then I can only ask if that is perhaps because the original state of the article was very poor, so perhaps any improvement looks good. But the article itself. Not in that good a state. Most of the history of this club? Not covered. There's brief bits here and there, but it's really not complete. But if you think I'm wrong, feel free to try a peer review or put it up as a good article candidate. Heck, just get neutral opinions on it. I'm sure you won't believe me, but maybe you'll listen when other folks say "It needs work" . Sorry, but I find it impossible to take your endorsement of this article seriously myself. FrozenPurpleCube 02:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I'm placing my comment here because I'm replying both to Quale and to Johnbod who expressed agreement with said user. Hope that doesn't confuse anybody, but sometimes threading can get mixed up,and I'd rather just be clear here. FrozenPurpleCube 03:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely; he's playing the same game in the one above Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Experimental Theatre Club Johnbod 01:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmm, attacking the nominator? It's not convincing at all. Many people find such criticism unhelpful, and I suggest you carefully consider whether the goal of defending an article may or may not be better served by at sticking to the content, and not attacking the contributor. FrozenPurpleCube 02:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An odd comment, as I have added considerably to the other article, whereas your considerable energies appear from your contribution history to be entirely directed to subtraction. Johnbod 02:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can think what you like about me, but I'm afraid I'm not going to give it much credence. Sorry, but your criticism is quite unconvincing. I've been quite civil, and I've expressed what I see as reasonable concerns. If you believe they're unreasonable, then please tell me how. Otherwise, stick to the content, and worry less about what you think about me. If you truly do believe there's a problem, try WP:RFC/USER. Also, it's probably not a good idea to take your experiences on another AFD and apply them to a different one. That makes it seem like you're taking things personally, which is rarely constructive. FrozenPurpleCube 02:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since I never claimed that the quality of sources isn't important, you can find the rebuttal to your reply to me at straw man. I think that Eales' work qualifies as a WP:RS reliable source. If you disagree, you can take it up in a different forum. Alternatively you can just write another tedious entry telling me and others what to do. I will probably decline to accept your kindly advice, but go ahead, knock yourself out. Quale 11:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, when did I claim you didn't? I merely pointed out my disagreements in your rebuttal to my concerns. Am I not allowed to reply to you? Are you not going to address what I said, in preference to criticizing me? That's not a good thing. You might want to consider looking at what I said and replying to it without the personal commentary. FrozenPurpleCube 15:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for not disappointing me, as I was sure that you would try order me about in your reply. Since you have an obsessive need to get the last word, go ahead. I don't have any interest in any more interaction with you than the bare minimum required to prevent you from harming WikiPedia. I think the five day clock has run out, and since your arguments have been rejected in this discussion by a margin of about 3 to 1 (a common occurrence in my experience), I need say nothing more. Quale 04:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And once again, you're criticizing me, instead of refuting what I'm saying. When have I harmed Wikipedia? Are you accusing me of vandalism? Disruptive conduct? You can disagree with a person without attacking them you know. Your persistant attacks on me aren't good arguments to keep the article, nor do they intimidate me in anyway. Again, I suggest you learn to stick to the content and not the contributor. If you are so swayed by your feelings toward me that you can't interact with me...I think that might be your problem. But hey, feel free to try WP:RFC/USER or WP:AN if you do believe I'm harming Wikipedia. Or heck, get some opinions from other editors. Maybe you need to look and see how your conduct might be inappropriate. FrozenPurpleCube 06:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, AFD, not a vote. Numbers aren't what's going to convince the closing admin to act. I do anticipate a no-consensus close, but that doesn't mean much. Especially since given the non-convincing sources, I'm concerned this article will remain in its poor state, and thus warrant reconsideration for deletion in the future. Seriously, instead of focusing on attacking me, you should have spent some time actually looking for good sources on the article. I've have been glad to see them. But instead, you waste time attacking me. FrozenPurpleCube 06:28, 18 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Oxford_University_Chess_Club&oldid=1079082083"