Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ICCF U.S.A.

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 no consensus. This decision does not mean that a merge discussion can not be continued. J04n(talk page) 01:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ICCF U.S.A.[edit]

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

Not notable, over-detailed, unsourced, puffery. Redirect declined for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not worth effort to clean up. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. Sourcable. ("Not worth effort" - who's effort? You don't seem to be the editor inclined to do the cleanup. How is it that you can put a value on other editors' time?) ("Over-detailed". Agreed, but that can be trimmed and is not a reason to delete. "Redirect declined for no reason". A blatant lie. You attempted to destroy the article by circumventing process with a REDIRECT, as stated in the revert edit sum.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a GNews search for "ICCF US chess" seems to run to three pages, most of which look like reliable, non-trivial sources, many some are in snippet view and/or paywalled. It certainly appears that the coverage exceeds the tagging. Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So are you going to add the coverage, or are you going to leave in its present condition, which is more tag than article? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is your newest argument for Delete, that because the article has so many tags, it should be deleted?! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, my argument is, if you think it's notable, prove it. Don't just say "but but but, there are sources!" Show me where they are. Add them. Do anything to fix the article. Don't say "keep" unless you wanna do something to improve it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been receiving The Chess Correspondent since the 1970s and have a virtual library of (hardcopy) issues, ISSN 0009-3327. It used to be published bi-monthly but is now published quarerly. [1]. The magazine has won several awards as you can see. Are you saying this publication counts for nothing? Do you really know what you are talking about?! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't beat around the bush. Do any of the magazine issues mention this thing or not? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they do. I have over 100 issues, have looked at them usually casually in the last many years when they've arrived. I still have most all of them. Also, Chess Life magazine has had a monthly correspondence chess column ("The Check is in the Mail") for many years, author mostly Alex Dunne. I'm sure ICCF-related matters have been presented in that magazine as well when they relate to their organizations. The WP policy, and AfD, demands for notability that an article can be sourced, not that it is at the time demanded by an editor filing an AfD. (Please be considerate in what you might respond with, if anything. Thanks.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words, let the article improve itself. If we just sit on it and do nothing, it'll become an FA overnight. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a 1991 book by Alex Dunne, The Complete Guide to Correspondence Chess (Thinkers Press). I don't have it, but Google Books says 35 pages contain "ICCF" [2], and since Dunne is a US postal player I'm sure it would be a source for some of the ICCF relationship topics. (I'm not going to buy the book because I'm not a fan of Dunne for specifics reasons I won't elaborate on here. I beat him in a USCF postal game, and playing him left a bad taste in my mouth.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have that book and also the 1980 book Correspondence Chess, by Hanon Russell. The books aren't indexed, so I'm going to have to search. However, Russell does talk about the CCLA (as it was named then) on page 171. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All I found, by the way, were passing mentions that just say "X was a member of ICCF USA". Do you really think that's enough to flesh out a whole article?! Get real. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability claim not supported by sources. The only references I found were passing mentions, so perhaps people voting "keep" might like to provide specific links. PS please keep things WP:civil with WP:faith. Regards, 1292simon (talk) 05:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sending the delete request to the current USA ICCF delegate. IF he wishes to expand the article or revise it - fine. I wrote the article but I do not wish to revise it so I leave it to better people. --Yoavd (talk) 06:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can supply at least one reference establishing notability. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two independent sources added, establishing notability. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to sound harsh, but references verifying that they published a fanzine does not establish notability for the article. 1292simon (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a fanzine - it is a legitimate publication, starting in 1930. And the two books establish notability of the organization. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:1292simon, according to American Heritage Dictionary (4th ed.), a fanzine is "an amateur-produced fan magazine". There is nothing mentioned in this thread even remotely approaching that definition, so what ever are you talking about?! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A sample issue of it can be here, and you can see whether or not it is a fanzine. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That link is dead. I think u mean this. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right. That sure doesn't seem like a fanzine to me. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The organization still calls themselves the "Correspondence Chess League of America", not "ICCF U.S.A." - even though they are the official ICCF member for the US. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm a bit confused. I thought that ICCF-US or ICCF-USA was the new name of the CCLA. But this says that the CCLA and USCF (and another organization that is ending) comprise ICCF-US. The CCLA seems to be the main organization, not the ICCF-US, so perhaps the article should be about the CCLA. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I thought the CCLA and the ICCF-US was the same thing. It seems that they are not. The references I gave are actually for CCLA. I wrote to the ICCF-US yesterday to see if they could clarify the relationship but I haven't gotten a reply. Here is some info. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

here is the answer of Leonard Schakel the delegate of ICCF-US.

Forwarded message ----------

From: Leonard Schakel Date: Sun, May 5, 2013 at 10:06 AM Subject: Re: Article about ICCF US To: Yoav Dothan

Hi Yoav, I could update it, or have someone do that, if deletion is being considered because it is not current. I would appreciate your opinion and suggestions. The only source that could easily be provided is iccfus.com. The criticism that it sounds like an editorial/opinion does not sound right. It’s just history and facts, correct as of 2007. I’d be glad to update it, but would not want to put in the effort if it will be deleted anyway. Best wishse! Cork

HE added:

Hi Yoav, OK. I have not figured out how to add comments, but will go after it today. It sounds like an account is needed to edit, and will target to get it done in the next week. Cork

--Yoavd (talk) 09:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify the relationship between the ICCF-USA and the CCLA? Should the article be more about the CCLA? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to International Correspondence Chess Federation, since the child article is larger than its parent. Sources should be added to the article, not merely listed at the AfD discussion. Miniapolis 13:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete Article is only supported by 4 distinct references and sourcing inline with that makes for a substandard article. Hasteur (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dea db eef 21:42, 14 May 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.