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 defaulting to keep. Smashville^BONK! 05:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chess Kids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested speedy (that is itself a recreation of a speedily deleted article). Chess club for schoolchildren. No assertion of notability, absolutely fails WP:N. Movingboxes (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - has no reliable sources (in fact no sources at ALL), and fails to assert notability. Interestingly (or not) there's also a non-notable independent film named Chess Kids. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 10:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfD is worth nothing if we can't learn random facts from it!  ;) Movingboxes (talk) 10:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True... like the fact that elephants can't jump! -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 10:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The website given at the external link shows franchise opportunities are available. This article is, probably unwittingly, advertising a commercial enterprise. The article fails to demonstrate that the organisation is notable in accordance with the criteria given at WP:ORG. The information may be true, but it isn't verifiable. The creator of the article has only ever contributed to this article, so there is likely a WP:COI. Dolphin51 (talk) 05:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I was able to find a couple of press releases from the (unaffiliated, as far as I can tell) Monash University discussing the group. Was also able to find this article from The Age. Together, I think they probably add up to enough to just scrape past the notability threshold. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Weak keep - the sources above barely make it notable, but they make it notable enough to keep. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 21:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a university newsletter does not establish notability.--Lester 22:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, is The Age a university newsletter? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- Newspaper articals I have found plus several school newsletters give it plenty of notability —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.150.50 (talk) 06:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC) — 121.223.150.50 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Note: The above vote was made by an IP address that has made no other edits in Wikipedia.--Lester 05:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Keep I do not see why there is all this debate it seams notable enough. It's more notable than other pages that would not of had this debate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.150.50 (talk) 06:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC) — 121.223.150.50 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment Please note that this is not a vote and posting multiple "keep" statements is frowned upon. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 08:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable & verifiable. The organization runs chess tournaments for students at hundreds of schools. At least a few of their regional tournaments have been hosted at a university and received news coverage. I saw the article for the first time from this AfD, did a bit of cleanup and added a couple footnotes. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: New information - 'Chess Kids' is not merely "a Chess organisation" or "an educational organisation", as it says in the article. It is a private company called Chess Kids Pty Ltd (ABN 43 118 087 871) that markets and sells chess products for the profit of its shareholders. The company is currently trying to get people to invest in franchises in this business. The Wikipedia article does not represent this Pty Ltd company for what it is. It should be deleted.--Lester 00:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether the company is non-profit or for-profit does not affect its notability for having an article. So what if the reason they sponsor the chess tournaments is so they can sell their stuff? It's the notability and verifiability that determines keeping or deleting the article, not whether or not the company is altruistic or profit-motivated. If you have reliable sources regarding their business model, that would be good info to add to the article, please do so, if you wish. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The question is whether it is the National Interschool Chess Championships or the marketing company 'Chess Kids Pty Ltd' that is more notable.--Lester 02:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on your comment, I found a reference in a Fox News newspaper that specifies that the National Interschool Chess Championships is a production of Chess Kids. You may be pleased to know that the same reference also describes them as a marketing company, founded by a chess enthusiast. So I've edited the lead of the article to reflect that information and add the additional news article reference. The several additional references now in the article further support the company's notability and verifiability. So, no, this article should not be deleted. But with your apparent interest in the topic, you can make the article much better yet. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It concerns me that there is not very much information about this company, Chess Kids Pty Ltd. Yes, in The Age article about the 'National Interschool Chess Championships' we saw that Chess Kids was mentioned, and it also interviewed David Cordover. However, most of the article was about the schoolchildren and the event, and about the popularity of chess in schools. There is not much information about the company itself (what this article is supposed to be about). We don't know about the company's franchising business. We don't know about its relationship to the other company, the book and accessory retailer ChessWorld Pty Ltd, which seems to be run by the same guy (one owns the other, maybe?). We need significant coverage about the company itself, not about whether or not chess is popular in schools. We need a lot more information about the company to justify an article about the company. I think the mainstream coverage about company information is marginal.--Lester 21:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Lester, I respect your concerns, but your comment addresses article content issues, not considerations of criteria for deletion. I've already entered my comments regarding the notability and verifiability of the article subject, so I'll leave it to consensus and the closing admin to take it from here. Best wishes... --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Hang on Lester, before your edits to the article, it wasn't even about the company, it was about the tournament organisation ([1]). Changing the article to be about the private company that runs the tournaments, and then arguing for deletion on the grounds that there is little information about the company seems a bit unusual and a bit unfair. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The tournament organisation just happens to be sponsored by the company "Chess Kids", which charges "$50 per half-hour, or $70 for a 1-hour session" (ask about our group rates, $30 per person for a half hour, $40 per person for a 1-hour session). Please don't waste anyone's time by showcasing this as an article about a chess tournament for Australian children. Mandsford (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. New references. Because the AfD was relisted, I took another look at Google and found some more references and added them the article, including info about the innovative business model of the company, and the surprising fact that when the company was started, its founder was only 20 years old. In the ten years since then, it's pretty amazing what he's accomplished. Last year, 9,000 children competed in the Chess Kids national interschool tournament. The added references include another national newspaper, a case study in a national business newsletter, and an article by the Chess Kids founder that was published in the respected Teacher: the National Education Magazine. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The range of references seems sufficient to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). WWGB (talk) 11:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep barely notable, but promotional, references itself, etc. - needs cleaning up WikiScrubber (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Lankiveil noted earlier that there were a couple of press releases "from the (unaffiliated, as far as I can tell) Monash University discussing the group." Monash University is hardly unaffiliated. The article proposed for deletion says, "Chess Kids has presented the National Interschool Chess Championship for three years in conjunction with Monash University, with the most recent event held in December 2007 at the Monash Clayton campus. The 48 hour tournament hosted 226 student players, from 45 schools. Monash University plans to host the event again in 2008." Krakatoa (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The newspaper and magazine articles that have been cited sufficiently establish notability, IMO. Krakatoa (talk) 04:04, 6 September 2008 (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.