Deletion of Queen's University Chess Club (second nomination)

Comment: Reference to student clubs as an overall category is misleading. This is a club with international connections, mentioned in the article, and clearly a definite, if closely defined, notability. If it is thought that the clear and uncontested notability of some players who belong to the club does not confer notability to the club, then so be it; but in chess, the players ARE the club. Arguing admittedly by analogy and not by official policy, in  a band is notable if it contains a notable member. Why should a chess club be different
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MUSIC)

Comment: per plenty of precedents of student societies being |not notable by definition, or per . Quite frankly, this is not one of those exceptions which proves the rule. Don't be fooled by the smoke and mirrors, the article tries to give the impression of things which were not the case, by including some verbose POV text, tenuous links and assertions. It seems to be written in a specific attempt to avoid deletion, with too much padding not of direct relevance to the club. Some examples, the QUCC's origins within the Kingston Chess club are tenuous at best; QUCC was founded in the 1950s, not 1841!; Larry Melvyn Evans was already American champ when he played at the tournament at QU, and was not a member of the QUCC. A complete re-write will show this up clearly, but I don't see it worth the effort unless it's the only way to convince the community of the '''delete''' conclusion which is staring me in the face. I was equally surprised at the keep verdict, for the reasons given by the nom. In addition, this poorly written, excessively linked up article is a real turn-off. But then, I suspect that's also part of the smoke and mirrors
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:ORG)