Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen's University 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 KEEP. -Doc^g 22:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's University Chess Club

University club. PROD contested. I still do not feel that the references provided to the article do enough to establish the club's notability, especially since most university clubs are non-notable. To me, it seems that the references provided just back up tournament results for specific people, rather than demonstrate the notability of the club as a whole. Delete. Andy Saund e rs 22:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am strongly contesting Mr. Andy Saunders' contest of the Queen's University Chess Club article. I have provided a significant number of different references, and am digging up more. While I acknowledge his points, planning and hosting the two most important events in Canadian chess, with international grandmasters competing, is a notable feat for any group, let alone a university club formed entirely of dedicated volunteers who received no payment for their months of planning and weeks of work, and created very successful championships which paid significant prize money to the champions. Several outstanding games, two of which have been referenced to a world-respected chess database, were played in these events. That doesn't happen with garden-variety groups. Then, the Queen's Club took the lead role in creating a new national organization for Canadian chess. So, this blanket, catch-all statement that most university clubs are non-notable definitely does not, in my view, apply here. We apparently have five days to improve the article, and have already significantly done this on the first day after receiving the potential delete notice. Frank Dixon, Kingston Dec. 15, 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankEldonDixon (talk • contribs)

Comment: I would say that the object would be to find sources that specifically names the Queen's University Chess Club as being instrumental, and not just sources that name people who happen to be members of the club. Andy Saund e rs 01:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep I think this could be a good article. A number of the players mentioned are internationally recognised, and in chess, the club is the players. Need to fill a lot of those red links, though.--Anthony.bradbury 23:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Mr. Bradbury for his encouragement. I will take his suggestions to heart, and plan to continue to improve the article. Not to be too hard on Andy Saunders, the Ontario Quizzer, but I took a look at his bio, and he is a trivia guy!! To a certain extent, chess competes with trivia as a mind sport, so there is a little bit of a rivalry subtext here! Organized trivia is a very recent phenomenon. But chess has been played for close to 2,000 years, is played around the world by millions of people (including six million in Canada alone), and there are more nations which are members of the International Chess Federation (FIDE) than any other sports federation except that for soccer (FIFA). Two players need not speak the same language to play a game of chess; knowing the rules is enough! Try trivia with that arrangment, Andy! Also, there have been more published books written about chess than about all other games and sports combined! Chess research has led to significant scientific advancements in other fields, some of which were attained by strong chessplayers. There are more possible ways to play a chess game than there are electrons in the universe. (And that's just with the basic starting position; do stuff like rearrange the pieces, add more pieces, change the board size and shape, add additional dimensions, and the unique possibilities multiply even further.) Dec. 15, 2006, 6:20 p.m. EST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankEldonDixon (talk • contribs)

Comment: I do not at all see how this above comment relates at all to the merits of the article. In fact, I see it as an ad hominem attack, implying that my opinion on the article's merits should be discounted as I apparently know nothing about chess (which could not at all be inferred simply by reading my User Page), and that I made the nomination in bad faith (by implying that a non-existent rivalry exists between trivia and chess). Andy Saund e rs 01:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having notable members, being involved in a notable game or competing in notable tournaments does not make an organization notable. The organization itself (not its tournaments, members or game) must have been the subject of multiple, independent coverage in reliable sources. Also, based on the author's autobiographical article, which has since been deleted, he is the advisor to this club, and writing about organizations one is involved with is a bad idea, per WP:AUTO and WP:COI. JChap2007 23:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JChap2007. This excessively linked up article is a real turn-off: I mean, how many times does Queen's University have to be wikilinked??. Seems to be written in a specific attempt to avoid deletion, with too much crap, pardon my French, which is not directly relevant to the club, so I'm not going to prod all the claims. Partial de-wikification and serious rosebush prune would be in order if kept.

Ohconfucius 13:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Points taken. I think it's best if this article is merged with the main Queen's University article. Frank Dixon Dec. 18, 2006, 348 EST.

Keep, clean-up and wikify. I don't think a merge is a good solution as the Queen's U article is already quite long. I agree that University clubs are not generally notable, but I think this one may be an exception. If it has a long history, notable members and matches, then I think the club itself is notable.--Kubigula (talk) 17:20, 19 December 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.