Deletion of Lunds ASK (2nd nomination)

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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS)

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 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)

Comment: per  a directory and . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:N)

Comment: 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  argument. SK Rocaden would certainly justify an article as well
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: Although this is an important chess club, a topic is Wikipedia notable (see ) if it has received significant coverage in Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources|secondary sources that are Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources|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 Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources|secondary sources, the topic cannot be developed into an article, or at least an article that could be Wikipedia:Verifiability|verified.  You may want to have the article developed on http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Huvudsida 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 Wikipedia:Help_desk#Where_to_ask_for_input_of_on_AfD.3F|this post
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)