Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippine Chess

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 redirect to National Chess Federation of the Philippines. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Chess[edit]

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

subject too vaguely defined, not suitable for an article, and no notability demonstrated SyG (talk) 10:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(comments) Hi, SyG, it's a pleasure to see you again. Some comments:
- At present the article has no content that would be not better in the articles about the various players, and that would no content in this articles. For an article called "Philippine Chess" I'd expected e.g. training and development programmes, international team tourments, a national federation to which a good number of strong clubs, etc. --Philcha (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I not think the article violate policies such as WP:BLP or WP:COPYVIO, so I not think it's a candidate for speedy deletion. --Philcha (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article had the right type of content, WP:DELETE says an article should not be deleted if these is reason to expect that WP:RS can be found - not that they must be cited immediately. In fact WP:BEFORE (e.g. what potential deleters must do before) says potential deleters must show that they've made a conscientious research to find if sources exist - i.e. deleting isn't easy. --Philcha (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting isn't easy? Articles can be and are redirected, to say Philippine Chess Championship in this example without any deletion process being involved. SunCreator (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment subject may be notable, see here. Establishing much content may prove difficult however. SunCreator (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the governing body National Chess Federation of the Philippines, as per Chess in Hong Kong which redirects to Hong Kong Chess Federation and Chess in Scotland which redirects to Chess Scotland.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to the governing body National Chess Federation of the Philippines would make the dubious assumption that all significant chess in the country was controlled by National Chess Federation of the Philippines. We know that world-level chess was split because in 1993 to 2005. --Philcha (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm simply following precedent. Philippine chess is a plausible search term, so it would be useful to keep it, but there's little there that cannot be detailed in an article on the national federation. I don't see anything "dubious" about it.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand Chess in China is an appropriate article. SunCreator (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - It appears to me that both National Chess Federation of the Philippines and Philippine Chess articles are going to struggle for content. At this point I'm happy combine them in the hope they may grow. They can always be divided up at a later stage if content becomes available. SunCreator (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per SunCreator. Grand Mattster 15:22, 22 February 2010 (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.