Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of officers of the Oxford 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   merge to Oxford University Chess Club.  MBisanz  talk 00:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

List of officers of the Oxford University Chess Club

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable offices/positions, basically per Fram's comment on the talk page a while back. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 18:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails on several points, as a list of people it fails to meet the requirements of WP:LISTPEOPLE. Most of the people on the list are entirely non-notable and, furthermore, unverifiable because much of the sourcing is using original research in old papers. *If* it is possible to verify their membership in a published source, maybe at best the notable members could be listed on Oxford University Chess Club. This is the sort of research that should be published on the club website, rather than Wikipedia. Sionk (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - I do not think we need this level of detail. Also, most of the people are not notable otherwise.  It is more appropriate for the club's website.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, a non notable position held by a number of notable people and many non notable ones. A redirect with a minimal merge (only listing the truly notable ones) is also acceptable. Fram (talk) 07:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per the above. Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C ) 19:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 03:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 03:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 03:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 03:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - excessive detail of no special significance. Should not be merged because so few of the officers are notable, and the non-notable ones would be excessive detail in the parent article.There should perhaps be at most one paragraph in the parent artcile listing notable officers, and who the current ones are.--A bit iffy (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why should Wikipedia list the current officers but not past officers? I don't see any reason to believe the current officers are of greater encyclopedic interest than past officers.  Deleting the whole lot seems more sensible. Quale (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge the presidents back to the article on the Oxford University Chess Club. Enough are notable to warrant it being encyclopaedic.  The secretaries and treasurers can be deleted since few were notable, other than those who were subsequently president.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good idea --merge per Peterkingiron. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge - information would fit well at Oxford University Chess Club.   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 22:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.