Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chess boxing

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 speedy keep per WP:SNOW. (NAC) --J.Mundo (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chess boxing

Notability is not temporary. ALL but one of the references are from around the middle of July, 2008 — TheBilly^(Talk) 09:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Plenty of reliable sources means that the article easily passes WP:N and WP:V. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep chess boxing even has its own article in Time magazine.[[1]] Theserialcomma more sources: http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/07/16/ap5222057.html http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/diet_and_fitness/article5432478.ece http://www.theintelligencer.net/page/content.detail/id/519496.html?nav=523 (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep if there really is such a thing. The concept of "chess boxing" offends me, and the fact that this is one of the small proportion of chess-related articles deemed "Good Article" or better offends me, but I have no doubt that this article is sufficiently notable to meet Wikipedia's standards. There is no requirement that all references in an article be from last month. I daresay that the vast majority of references in the vast majority of articles are older than July 2008 (often a lot older) - see, e.g., George H. D. Gossip, recently promoted to Featured Article. And even if chess boxing ceased to exist - which would be fine with me - it would still be notable as a historical curiosity. I see no legitimate basis whatsoever for deleting this article. Krakatoa (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some editor must have thought this was a hoax or a trivial prank engaged in by drunken frat boys. Wrong! Chessboxing is for real. It is a growing sport throughout Europe and North America. Regardless of the problems it may cause in classification (physical sport or board game), this article definitely should not be deleted. DavidWatersHC —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Clearly notable as shown by User:Theserialcomma above. Nominator has apparently misunderstood the intended meaning of "notability is not temporary", and suggest he reads WP:NTEMP, particularly the first sentence which reads "If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic". JulesH (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a ridiculous combination of games, but it is sadly notable. I know that Simen Agdestein wound up seriously hurt in a comedy stunt for TV [2] which extends my distaste for the activity, but which is yet another source contributing to notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it's completely stupid (although not as stupid as extreme ironing), but it's certainly notable. It's even been on TV. Tris2000 (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2009 (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.