Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iowa State Chess Association

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 all. Majorly (hot!) 10:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa State Chess Association[edit]

I believe this organization is lacking sufficient notability. The United States Chess Federation is a national organization of some notability, but do we need articles for branch organizations in all 50 states? It might be acceptable to merge all three of the articles I'm nominating into one article describing the various members of the USCF, but I am dubious of the value of that. Of the nominated articles, I only see the New York one claiming notability, and I am unable to confirm it (didn't even see a history section on their site) FrozenPurpleCube 21:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC) In short, they don't meet the standards of WP:ORG which says "Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. However, chapter information is welcome for inclusion into wikipedia in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included." (added to clarify nomination)[reply]

Of these, New York State Chess Association has a fair amount of matter, but short stub pages for each regional chess federation branches could each be a section of one big page. Anthony Appleyard 21:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, the New York page is lacking any kind of references to support the, not even their own site mentions it. And I don't know that the proposed combined page would contain anything other than a directory of the various members, a purpose easily filled by the USCF's own website. FrozenPurpleCube 22:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. FrozenPurpleCube has a strong antipathy for chess-related pages on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alekhine's_defense, Modern_variation, 4...Bg4 for another of his batch deletion nominations). Answering the question, "do we need articles for branch organizations in all 50 states?", I would say that they aren't needed, but they would be desirable. There's no reason to delete the ones we have and a good reason to write articles on the ones that are missing. The articles are well organized in Category:Chess organizations, and we have a clear criterion: these are the state organizations that are affiliates of the USCF, the national organization. (If we had articles on 20 or so of the state affiliates we would create a subcat of Chess organizations for them.) I don't think Manticore's complaints address any accepted Wikipedia inclusion or deletion criteria. Basically they boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTCARE. Those aren't good reasons to delete pages. Quale 03:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, your comments are more on the contributor than the content, which is a WP:NPA problem, but I do wish to assure you that I have no animosity towards chess articles at all. And the problem is, what is there to say about any of these organizations? Only the New York page claims any kind of notability, and it is completely unreferenced. Sorry, but while I agree, good articles on notable chess organizations that are appropriately referenced are desirable, the current state of affairs is anything but desirable. And furthermore, WP:ORG already has a policy, which I added above about individual chapters. Other than possibly New York, I don't see these pages meeting that standard. If you believe these concerns can be fixed, then I request you do so. And no, I'm afraid I don't consider that category well organized at all. It has 29 pages, which constitutes a bare fraction of the members of the FIDE and not all of the pages in the category are FIDE associations anyway, so that number is lower anyway. Few of them have references, and even the Fédération Internationale des Échecs article is in poor shape. It's completely lacking in references and has some serious problems with organization. FrozenPurpleCube 04:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry, you're right. WP:ORG is relevant and I was wrong to claim that you had not cited any applicable deletion or inclusion criteria. The problem is that the specific section you quote: "Individual chapters of national and international organizations..." doesn't apply here. These are not chapters of USCF. The state organizations are affiliated, but autonomous. If you look at the articles, you will see that the New York and Iowa organizations were established before the USCF existed. Each state organization engages in significant activities separate from the national organization. As an example, they typically host the state chess championship for their respective states. Your dispute over whether the articles are well organized seems to miss the mark. You are complaining about incomplete coverage in an area of articles that you seem to want deleted anyway, which doesn't make sense to me. The general rule for subcategories is that they should have 14 to 200 pages in them. The parent Category:Chess organizations is not large enough yet to require subcategorization, but it will be easy to do if (I hope when) that is needed. (Specifically to your point: we don't yet have a subcat for FIDE members because we don't have enough articles on them yet. That's a reason to write some more articles, not a reason to delete ones we already have.) Concerns about references are justified, but AFD is not the preferred method of resolving that issue. Arguments like "Do we need" seem to be appeals to emotion (WP:IDONTLIKEIT), with no basis in Wikipedia guidelines or practice. Quale 16:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I'm sorry if I confused or mislead you with my choice of words, but I'm afraid I do not see the assertions you made as to being autonomous as persuasive. At best, inclusion of the history in the United States Chess Federation or a list of state affliates of the USCF would be acceptable, and that's only if it's appropriately referenced. That of course, remains undone. FrozenPurpleCube 17:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - And furthermore, I was responding to your assertion that the Chess organizations category was in good shape. It's not. The category itself is fine. The current contents are clearly incomplete. FrozenPurpleCube 17:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - There was nothing wrong with your choice of words, it was a pure oversight on my part. You clearly mentioned WP:ORG and I just missed it—my fault. As for the rest, if you don't see how an organization being about 80 years older than the parent organization that it is supposedly a chapter of makes it autonomous, then you might see why I think discussion with you on these issues is a waste of time. I want to commend you on taking an ethical and community based approach in trying to address the issues you (and almost you alone) see with the chess content on Wikipedia. You have posted on the talk page of WP:CHESS, the chess wikiproject, and tagged some chess articles and cats you take issue with. That hasn't give you satisfaction, so AFD was the appropriate next step. The problem is that I don't think you have any interest in a real dialog or have any intention of allowing anyone else to convince you of anything about chess content in Wikipedia. Your universal response to everyone who comments in opposition to your views are "I remain unconvinced", etc., etc., etc. It may be that everyone else at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alekhine's_defense, Modern_variation, 4...Bg4 is wrong, and every argument opposed to you is unconvincing because you are the only one who sees the truth. I ask you to consider the other possibility.... As far as organization of Category:Chess organizations, I'm afraid I think your complaints have absolutely no merit. The category correctly consists of chess organizations and is currently too small to support or require subcategorization. It itself is a subcat of Category:Chess and Category:Sports organisations, exactly as one would expect, making it easy to find. You complain that the category is incomplete yet you seek to delete the very pages that would populate it. Wikipedia itself is incomplete, and will always remains a work in progress. Quale 03:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I don't see that age as especially meaningful, no. This is especially true because simple age of an organization isn't proof of notability or demonstration of reliable sources. Not that the current article shows much in the way of covering that history. It says it was founded in 1899. Then nothing but the president and a few other officers today. Maybe, just maybe, the chess association's page can be acceptable as a source for the age, but I find it doubtful. If there aren't reliable sources for history beyond that, I'm sorry, but it's just not enough to sustain its own article. But, hey instead of concerning yourself about me, why haven't you done anything to improve the article and thus demonstrate there is real informed content to be had? The article remains unchanged. I might be convinced to change my opinions if you did some work to the article, but I have yet to see that happen. FrozenPurpleCube 04:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure what you are talking about with regards to subcatergorization here, that's got exactly nothing to do with the concerns I've expressed, which was to dispute your claim that the category was in good shape. It's not. Why you're going on this track about subcategories, I haven't the foggiest. The only subcategory I have an immediate problem with in that tree was the empty one on Swedish Chess Clubs. I'm sorry, but I think it's pretty obvious that's getting a little too specific. Plus it was empty, so small loss anyway. FrozenPurpleCube 04:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. No sources. If you add sources that show notability, popularity, importance, and so on I'll reconsider. Arbustoo 07:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Premise above "do we need articles for branch organizations in all 50 states?" is against wikipedia policy:Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia.Tstrobaugh 16:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And what about WP:NOT#DIR? These amount to little more than directories of state associations. Not to mention the lack of sources means WP:V is a problem. I would also say that WP:N is also a problem, and as I added above, WP:ORG does cover state-level chapters. FrozenPurpleCube 16:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - These organizations are not state-level chapters. The organizations are affiliated with the USCF but autonomous, and frequently (as in the case of Iowa State Chess Association and New York State Chess Association) are older than the USCF itself. Quale 16:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All of the organizations are the main affiliate in their respective states, giving them a great deal of importance in chess organization beyond the very very local like a local chess club. Two of these organizations are responsible for organizing the State Championships, see the tournament lists for the Iowa organization, and for the Pennsylvania organization. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any reliable sources for information beyond their sponsorship of these state championships? If that's all you've got to say about them, I'm sorry, but it's simply not notable or distinct enough to sustain an individual article. All fifty state affiliates probably sponsor state-wide championships. What is there beyond that? Since are are a member of the Chess Wikiproject, I suggest you take a careful look at the situation, and make sure you are not arguing keep solely on that bias. FrozenPurpleCube 13:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. State organizations are not considered notable unless they get a lot of press coverage or have some discernible national impact. The nominator, FrozenPurpleCube, quoted from our written policy in WP:ORG. Others have pointed out that the Iowa and New York chapters are older than the parent. This doesn't give them a free pass for inclusion in Wikipedia. They still face the hurdle shared by all state organizations, whether chapters or not, that WP:ORG doesn't want to include them unless 3rd-party reliable sources have commented on them. These articles have no reliable sources at all, and they contain nothing interesting that might tempt us to overlook the policy issues. EdJohnston 15:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I found a few independent online articles with non-directory mention of the Iowa SCA.
- [1]
- [2]
- [3]

Matchups 03:43, 21 April 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.