Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lunds ASK (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The keepers have established notability (multiple national titles, international representation) and scope for expansion (notable Grandmasters playing for the Clubs) but OTOH the deleters make the equally good point that there needs to be more secondary sources. TerriersFan 17:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Lunds ASK
I don't see this club meeting the standards of WP:ORG as there are no third-party sources that I could find about it. There may be more in Swedish, but the only claim to notability made in the previous deletion discussion was winning some championships. But what is important about these championships? They aren't even named in the article, and while they may be named here, I don't speak Swedish, so I can't tell. And why is this the only team that has won them with an article? What about SK Rockaden which has won far more of these championships? It might be reasonable to mention this team in an article on chess in Sweden overall, but it would still need to be sourced to something besides the organization itself. Also see related AFDs: Articles for deletion/Melbourne Chess ClubArticles for deletion/Box Hill Chess ClubArticles for deletion/Bearsden Chess Club FrozenPurpleCube 16:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Addition Due to SK Rockaden being created in what I assume is a response to this nomination, I am adding it to this AFD as the arguments for the initial nomination apply equally well to this club.  FrozenPurpleCube 20:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Since several editors gave their !vote before the addition of SK Rockaden to this AfD, the addition seems too late to be include in the results of this AfD. -- Jreferee 22:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've notified all of them(with the exception of the editor who created the article), if they choose to change or modify their comments, they can. If the closing Admin thinks there is somehow a difference between the two, I'll start its own AFD.  But honestly, I can't find any more non-trivial sources for this new article than Lunds ASK. The references on the page are a directory entry, a list of winners, and a couple of sets of statistics.  Significant coverage that doesn't make.   FrozenPurpleCube 02:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Atown chess club? not notable.  Reywas92 Talk Review me 20:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - obvious keep. This club has won its national team championships 8 times - a highly notable occurrence in any sport, and has a notable grandmaster playing for them. The other AfDs mentioned are total red herrings since no notable achievements were in those articles. The absence of an SK Rockaden article is also not relevant; it simply means that an article should be created. BlueValour 22:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm unconvinced. Who has noticed these unspecified national championships?  Where can I even find information about them other than one bare list?  Also, I don't believe that one individual's membership in a club automatically makes the club notable.  Is there any support for that method of notability assertion?  FrozenPurpleCube 23:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I can mention that Bergen's Chess Club, (which does not have an article, and since I am a member of the said club, I won't write one due to WP:COI), has an article in Bergen Byleksikon a "city encyclopedia" for Bergen. That article makes a point of having Ivar Bern as a member... and at the time of writing he was not World Champion of Correspondence Chess yet. The reason I point this out is that a strong individual's membership of a club can contribute to the club's notability. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * One would expect a reference work intended to cover a local city to include almost any club from the city. Sorry, but that's not actually good evidence on its own.  It's no more an indication of notability than a Who's Who entry.  In any case, do you have any support for that on Wikipedia?  Any sign of consensus for the idea that one individual member makes for a notable club?   FrozenPurpleCube 06:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, even the city encyclopedia doesn't bother to cover the chess clubs Nordnes, Fana, and SK96, nor the former clubs of Fyllingsdalen and Åsane, all of which are within Bergen. In terms of membership, Nordnes is about as big as Bergens. The authors of the city encyclopedia have almost certainly chosen to make a distinction based on the clubs' merits of achievement. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said "almost any club" . But wait, we're not even talking about Lunds ASK, but a second club, not even in the same country.  So, exactly why is arguing for the existence of this one club indicative of the notability another club that isn't related to it at all?  It's not.  Maybe you should try to find out if there's any kind of actual coverage of Lunds ASK that is significant as opposed to using the existence of a local "city encyclopedia" that mentions another club.  FrozenPurpleCube 13:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, this discussion started because of your claim that a strong player being a member does not make a club notable. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And as I asked, do you have any support for that on Wikipedia? Any sign of consensus for the idea that one individual member makes for a notable club? I don't think I've seen it, but if you have, you can point it out.  The practices, however, of a reference work of dubious status  are not convincing.  Sorry.  FrozenPurpleCube 15:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. This was not just some local championship they won, it was the national team championship, the elite series of a nationwide tournament, and winning it qualifies the team for European championships. Becoming national champion is thewrefore a clear claim to notability, and the list of winners shows that we do have a reliable source for that achievement. The fact that these championships were won in the 1960s and 1970s explains the relative paucity of available information on the internet, while I do not have access to the paper versions of Swedish chess publications (probably Schachnytt), I can say, that clubs in Norway (which is formerly was a weaker country when it came to chess) with this level of achievement have received ample coverage in Norwegian chess publications. To answer one of the concerns, "Why is this the only team that has won them with an article?" Well, because nobody has written an article about them. Anyway that argument is effectively a reverse WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. SK Rocaden would certainly justify an article as well. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As a note for the Elitserie of today, note that the international "The Week in Chess" website, gives active coverage of the championship, see for an example. So this is not just some local joke championship masquerading as a national one. Sjakkalle  (Check!)  06:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What's important about this national championship? Where is the article on it?  Or even these European championships?  Who has written on them and where?  One website that only recounts the results of it, along with numerous other results?  That's not significant coverage at all.  Sorry, but while I suppose including this information in an article on Chess in Sweden might be viable, I don't see the case for this individual club or its own.  Sorry, but all I'm seeing it WP:ILIKEIT.  FrozenPurpleCube 06:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep -- it is notable. / Fred-Jn 09:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC) (Closer: see Fred Jn !vote below) -- Jreferee 22:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please say why, and show it with sources. See WP:N.  So far, nobody has done that.  I'm sorry, but a simple listing that this club has won a championship isn't significant coverage on its own.  FrozenPurpleCube 13:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:ORG says "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization." The scope of this chess club is plainly national, playing in the national premier league and the reference in the article verifies the championships. BlueValour 18:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, this club is not national (let alone international) in scope or scale. It's a local club, whose team has simply taken part in what seems to be a national competition of unspecified character.  Chess in Sweden does have a national organization, but Lunds ASK is not it.  This  is the FIDE member for Sweden.  See the difference?  Besides, even if you weren't mistaken in your interpretation, you need to read the whole section, not just pick out one portion of a sentence to justify your views.  There's a reason why it says and information can be verified.  Then read a little further and you'll see this: "In other words, they satisfy the primary criterion above."  But wait, there's no evidence whatsoever that any of the primary criterion above has been met.  Unless you can tell me what about the sources you've provided meet "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability."   So far, I'm not seeing it.  Sorry, but your attempts to justify the existence of this article have continually failed to meet that standard, or any at all.    FrozenPurpleCube 19:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I find the arguments of BlueValour and Sjakkalle to be persuasive, and the nominator's arguments to be equally unpersuasive.  Quale 18:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could explain what you find persuasive or unpersuasive?  Simply saying "Me-too" isn't very constructive to a discussion.  FrozenPurpleCube 19:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have now created SK Rockaden. BlueValour 19:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll add that to this discussion since I suspect you only created it because of this discussion. FrozenPurpleCube 20:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. GreenJoe 19:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Any team that wins the top division of its national league is plainly notable. We need to be aware that finding sources in English for teams from non-English speaking countries is always going to be problematic. I also have some problem with the approach of the nominator - I am puzzled by his frenetic efforts to get a perfectly harmless article deleted. Also, the basis for the nominator adding SK Rockaden is highly suspect and based on a failure to WP:AGF. BlueValour 20:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not assuming good faith, but I find it hard to believe you created the article for any other reason. Still, I'm sorry for being suspicious, but perhaps you should consider whether that action of yours was appropriate.  If you don't see how the action could be negatively interpreted, I'm afraid you may need to take a bit more time and think about your actions. Besides, you'll note that I've applied the same arguments for the initial nomination to this other club as well.  The references you have are nothing in the way of significant content.  They are nothing more than statistical listings, one is just a directory.  Sorry.  Not significant coverage.  I'm sure you believe that a team that wins the top division of its national league is plainly notable, but I don't, since I know there are many competitions going on every year.  None of them are notable without sources.  If you truly believe that the problem is foreign language sources, then perhaps you might wish to create these articles on sv.wikipedia.org instead?  I don't see a Lunds ASK on the Swedish Wikipedia, or even one on the actual Swedish national chess organization, so perhaps you would care to contribute there.  It is even possible that you could develop an article that could be translated over.   In any case, WP:HARMLESS is not a valid reason to keep an article.  FrozenPurpleCube 20:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Both teams have won their national league multiple times and represented Sweden in the European Club Cup - that's enough for notability. Bridgeplayer 22:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it? Where can I find mention of this notability standard?  It's not in WP:ORG.  What non-trivial sources offer significant coverage of these teams?  Where can we even find coverage of this national league or the club cub?  If all the sources you have are the same ones as above, perhaps you might want to consider looking for better ones.  If you can't find any, consider whether or not this club warrants an article.  Not every club and organization needs to have an article. FrozenPurpleCube 22:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep -- the chess league in Sweden consists of the divisions I-IV and the elitserie (premier league), the one Lunds ASK has won on several occasions. The league is organized by the Sw. Chess Federation, and is not "some national championship". / Fred-J 13:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the second time you have made a statement in this thread. If you feel a need to expand on your comments, it would be preferred if you simply replied to them.  Or to the question I asked of you earlier.   In addition, I see by your edit summary you still seem to believe that AFDs are votes. But as I explained to you on your talk page, they aren't.  This is a discussion based on the weight of your arguments, not the number of people. FrozenPurpleCube 14:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Beyond that, where are your sources covering this team? You haven't even confirmed your statements, just asserted them.  Why is it notable? A local team that has won a national championship doesn't automatically meet notability standards.  FrozenPurpleCube 14:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well if you don't think a club that has won the national chess league is notable then I guess we disagree on this. / Fred-J 21:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not when there are no sources providing significant coverage and it's but one of many many teams and national leagues. There are literally dozens, if not hundreds of such competitions in many sporting and gaming endeavors.  (In fact, there are currently several AFDs for various beauty pageant contestants).  Not all competitions are sufficiently notable to have articles.  Perhaps one day that will change, and Wikipedia will cover everything under the sun, but that day isn't today.  Now if you want to make an article on the FIDE-affiliate in Sweden, that'll probably be more feasible. FrozenPurpleCube 01:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * keep Multiple National Championship wins seem reasonably notable. Strong delete Whoops when I actually read over WP:N it became quite clear this article actually doens't meet WP:N Sethie 21:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Although this is an important chess club, a topic is Wikipedia notable (see WP:N) if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The coverage in the sources provided in the article are minimal, not significant. I looked for other sources, but could not find any. Without more coverage in reliable secondary sources, the topic cannot be developed into an article, or at least an article that could be verified. You may want to have the article developed on Swedish Wikipedia using Swedish published sources (if they in fact exist) and then translated into English for the English Wikipedia. Comment to closer I came here in response to this post. -- Jreferee 22:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment, Jreferee. -- Fred-J 22:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have sources for the article that are in the Sweedish language, they still count (in my book) so long as an editor vouches for their content. Have you looked at their website for publications about Lunds ASK? If you (or someone) locates them before the close of this AfD, please post a note on my talk page so that I may review my positon. -- Jreferee 16:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I myself would be willing to give any sources you can provide as much examination as I can. I'm not nominating this article because I have some particular bias against Sweden or Chess Clubs, I merely note that it lacks the kinds of notability that the subject of an article should have.  Of course, you might have a stronger case if you get a well-developed article on this club on the Swedish Wikipedia instead, since it would be hoped that with more eyes looking at it, there would be a better article.  FrozenPurpleCube 16:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, both articles. - Crockspot 23:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - One of the reasons behind notability is to make sure we have enough sources to use to make an article. Can anyone provide sources, such as chess magazines, books, (national) newspaper articles, online newspapers (like The Register or MSNBC), etc? --h2g2bob (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I admit I may be a bit partial on this because I like chess, and play (bad, bad amateur), so you may count this as a weak vote... I don't like the bottom-up approach here, that is I would rather have an article on Chess in Sweden first. Still, for many of the reasons above (references at FIDE and TWIC, international representation, etc.) a list of top clubs within such article would probably point here, so we are not going into too much detail too fast here. - Nabla 13:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, first, you shouldn't take commenting here as a vote. The closing admin will not take numbers into account, but rather the substance of the arguments as based upon existing policy and guidelines.  If you're just commenting here because you like chess, then perhaps you might wish to read the list of arguments to avoid.  That said, you certainly have a worthy idea in that Chess in Sweden would be a reasonably valid article, if appropriately sourced, though given that most of the sources would be in Swedish, I might suggest working on it on the Swedish Wikipedia instead.  Which doesn't even have an article on the Sveriges Schackförbund.  FrozenPurpleCube 14:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Commenting *is* the point here, the 'vote' is simply a shorthand so that the closing admin may have a quick overall impression of the comments, and serves to unambiguously clarify it, since sometimes very similar arguments are used for and against deletion. That I am honest enough to let clear any bias I may have is no reason to attack me. If you want to talk policy, fine. I point you that many of your reasons to delete are not based on any policy: that you do not understand swedish in order to confirm the article source's is not a reason to delete; that it is the first of its kind is not a reason to delete. On the other hand, winning "just a few" *national* championshipsin a notable sport, like chess, and even being part of international competitions, all of which you admit to be true, typically are reasons enough to inclusion. Finally I did not say it should be included because "I like it", I say it is borderline notable given the titles and the existence verifiable given the references at FIDE and TWIC, and thus it should be kept. - Nabla 15:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how I've attacked you simply by saying that you shouldn't take commenting here as a vote, or referring you to WP:ATA. You yourself described your comments as a weak vote, and that you were potentially biased based on liking chess.  I replied with a statement that you shouldn't take your comments as a vote, and that you might want to look at WP:ATA.  That's not an attack, that's responding to your own comments.  My comments were polite, and not personal attacks, as I offered no commentary on you at all, merely on the substance of your words. If you don't like that, perhaps you might have considered writing your comments a bit differently.  But to accuse me of attacking you? I don't see how I have attacked you.  Could you be specific in explaining what you found to be an attack?  If it's simply because I responded to your comments in a fashion that you found to be critical, I'm sorry if you've taken it as hostile, but that's not an attack on my part.  Yes, I know it can be irritating for someone to tell you something you already know, and I apologize if you felt it was irritating, but please don't accuse me of attacking you just because you find something I said to you irritating.  FrozenPurpleCube 16:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I suggested the Swedish Wikipedia as a place to go because I feel it would simply offer the most access to people who can review the existing sources and thus produce the best possible article. Once that's been done, I would have no objection to translating a good article over to English.  It may be unfortunate, but the fact is, transparent access to all sources in all languages isn't possible at this time.  It may lead to some systemic bias, but that doesn't mean the solution is to just accept any claim of "But it's important over here" as valid.  If it is, and all the sources are available over there, then the smart thing to do is work on it there.  Then you can bring a solid, well-done article into other Wikipedias.  Is there something objectionable to that?   Am I wrong to say that foreign-language sources are difficult for people who don't speak the language to examine?   It doesn't represent a bias against them, I merely acknowledge that it is a problem.  Whether or not this should be a policy, I don't know, but recognizing it is something I think important.  Especially since in this particular case, the coverage of Chess in the Swedish Wikipedia doesn't even include the main FIDE affiliate having an article.  Pardon me for thinking that might be something worth changing.  And no, I don't consider simply winning a national championship inherently notable.  There are many national and even international championships in numerous competitive endeavors.  Not all of them warrant inclusion on Wikipedia, let alone the individual competitors within it.  That would potentially create thousands of articles with no more sources beyond lists of winners and the occasional use of the organization's own website.  That's not an idea I can support at this time.  Thus I stand by using the standard policy at WP:ORG which requires significant coverage in third-party sources.  You haven't offered any sources otherwise, nor has anybody else so far.  All I've seen are some directories and trivial coverage in winner's lists. If you, or anybody else wants to try it at sv:Lunds ASK, go ahead, you might have more luck convincing folks or just an easier time finding better sources.   Of course, given that this is but one team among many that have won national chess championships, I don't think it'd be doing much to address the overall issue.  That would be something worth thinking about on its own. FrozenPurpleCube 16:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Appologies accepted. Moving on... The notability guideline says that if a subject has multiple, reliable, indepent, non-trivial sources than it is presumed to be notable. It does not say that if failing one of the above then non notability is to be assumed. This subject fails one of the above: non-triviality. Yet, I am confident enough that a club existing for 101 years now (confirmed by FIDE's site), does have those somewhere, so the criteria will be fully filled sometime, so let's let the wiki process carry on. Although, I repeat, I think this is only borderline notable. - Nabla 22:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the question of what to do in cases of borderline notability remains ongoing. Perhaps it will be addressed in the future. FrozenPurpleCube 23:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I don't think we can say anything is confirmed by the FIDE site. All directory entries on it are user-submitted, and I can't see any evidence of fact-checking on it.  FrozenPurpleCube 23:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Borderline notability is mostly discussed right here. And it's fine for us to disagree, that's why it is called 'borderline'. Thanks for the FIDE's site info, I didn't knew and I'll try to remember that, still you are not claiming this to be an hoax, right? - Nabla 15:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea whether it's a hoax or not, lacking sources to show otherwise. If I did believe it was a hoax, I'd have used CSD instead, but even if it is true, it's still a question of sources and notability.  FrozenPurpleCube 16:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * TWIC's scores report span over several years. Certainly not an hoax. - Nabla 16:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. "Notability" is an idea that many deletionists use as a basis for selecting which articles ought to remain and which are to be deleted, there are no really objective criteria on which to make a decision. However, in this instance I feel the club's acievements are notable! The proposer states ". . . there are no third-party sources that I could find about it. There may be more in Swedish . . ." and perhaps therein lies the real problem with deletion. Keep for improvement! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthana (talk • contribs)
 * Well, as I suggested, perhaps using the Swedish Wikipedia for that improvement might be a better idea. That way it's more likely folks with greater access to the sources can use them.  FrozenPurpleCube 16:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete both per WP:NOT a directory and WP:N. The sources provided do not give significant coverage beyond directory-style info. The nominator and other delete !votes make strong arguments based on established guidelines, while the "keepers" thus far have not provided more substantial coverage to show evidence of notability, and from which more flesh out articles could be written.  Zun aid  ©  ®  11:03, 12 June 2007 (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.