Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ohio Grade Level Chess Championships


 * 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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Ohio Grade Level Chess Championships

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Per WP:ORG. There must be thousands of these, all wonderful, but all exactly the same. --fvw *  01:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Just isnt notable enough. The Locke (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - I don't see state level scholastic competitions as notable. TerriersFan (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, not notable. Bubba73 (talk), 02:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep seems moderately notable per Google, , . JJL (talk) 02:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete (changed to Weak Delete, see below) - below notability. For people in chess, junior events don't count for notability, and I believe the case similar in other sports too (e.g. soccer requires at least one senior league game to be played). In chess, we bend the rules for truly exceptional cases (such as World Junior Champions), because they are virtually guaranteed of senior success in the future anyway. Now, for events, rather than people, the threshold is a little lower, e.g. The Australian Junior Championship is listed (at Australian Chess Championship), but the champions themselves aren't automatically notable. So... does this Ohio teams' championship pass this lower threshold? I believe not. It is a state junior championship, which is a level down from a national junior championship. In short, I believe a list of national junior champions is notable; I believe a list of state champions is not notable. So while I can't point to a specific guideline, I think the notability of the event (in world chess terms) is low enough that we should delete, otherwise we're opening the floodgates to thousands of statewide junior events across the world. The google hits don't change this - lots of minor junior sports results can be found on Google, that doesn't make them notable. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It does if they meet WP:N. Not sure this one does (see weak keep below), but "OTHERTHINGSEXIST and will flood us" not a policy-based reason for deletion... Hobit (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Further comment - Oops, I didn't notice that there were individual championships as well. This raises notability, but not enough. I've removed the words above on "teams", but my comments on individual events (which were already there) still point to a "delete" from me. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (Replying to Hobit) I understand, but I'm trying to work out how to evaluate this one in the absence of a clear guideline. Does WP:ORG really cover sports/games competitions? I'd like to see a more specific guideline. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say in the face of an unclear guideline, WP:N is what we use. I think this case is borderline given the sources found to date, but I strongly suspect more local news sources exist. Hobit (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:ATHLETE was presumably formulated to give a guide so that AfDs of sports people were handled consistently; and I was hoping for something similar for sports competitions. While the winners are clearly non-notable per WP:ATHLETE (see Articles for deletion/Ryan Clayton (chess player)), I can see that the competition itself is bordering on notable. I've changed my assessment (above) to weak delete. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per WP:N., . Not great, but multiple, independent, secondary sources. Hobit (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Peter Ballard Voorlandt (talk) 14:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Peter Ballard SyG (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Per the sources referenced above passes basic notability guidelines. Also, I think there could only be 50 other events like this at most, not thousands.  There's only so many states in the US that can hold chess championships.  §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  23:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course there are thousands of other potential events, not just 50. I'll leave you to work out why. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was referring specifically to state-wide scholastic chess championships in the United States. I wasn't trying to make a rude comment, which it appears you have conceived it as. §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  00:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's OK, I'll put it down to a misunderstanding. In any case, there are similar comparable competitions worldwide, even if they're not called scholastic. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep I don't think every state holds a state competition, but I know some states have multiple such competetions a year, so there probably are quite an amount of similar tournaments. However, there are several local sources referencing the tournament. I personally read about it in the Chagrin Valley times, a paper in Chagrin Falls and from google I can see other sources like the Toledo Blade. I also found various school websites with articles referring to the tournament (Hawken School, University School, Shaker Heights HS) This gives it some notability. 11kowrom 02:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 11kowrom (talk • contribs)


 * Comment from creator (presumably Keep) - I believe this page is notable because there are several outside sources referring to the tournament. It is one of the largest chess tournaments in Ohio and is the largest scholastic tournament in Ohio. Many prominant schools compete in the tournament as well. Lorty2 (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (This was posted on the article's talk page by the article's creator and I am reposting it here.)ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC))

My own view is that it doesn't meet the inclusion guidelines. I would say Delete ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with Peter Ballard that the guidelines are not completely clear for sporting competitions; however simple logic would decree that if the players themselves are not notable, then a competition between them is ipso facto, not notable. Brittle heaven (talk) 09:41, 21 December 2008 (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.