Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9 Queens

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

9 Queens[edit]

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

Seems to be an advertisement, not neutral 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 11:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a bit promotional, but not too bad. Many of the links are dead, but I can find the articles with a web search. Looks to meet WP:N, WP:ORG is a bit more questionable. Hobit (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks way too parochial to me. Coverage in local press, but not nationally/globally. If every 'local' initiative of this type had an article, Wikipedia would be flooded with them. Don't forget, there will be similar initiatives all over Europe and further afield also. I have no problem with initiatives that are being rolled out and supported on a national basis, as they should have articles in the chess press, national newspapers etc. However, my impression so far is that these sources don't offer enough gravitas to confer notability. Rather than being entirely promotional, per the comments above, I feel that the author is also relying on the high profiles of the individual founders to attempt to strengthen the case for the article. This too, sets the alarm bells ringing. Brittle heaven (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Brittle heaven - the coverage is all local. And nothing really links to it except Jennifer Shahade. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-per User:Brittle heaven. Relevant ~~policy guideline~~ essay is WP:MILL. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:13, 5 November 2013 (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.