Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ChessCafe.com (2nd nomination)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) SMB99thx my edits 03:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ChessCafe.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources not reliable, doesn't meet WP:NWEB or WP:GNG Lynndonald (talk) 11:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lynndonald (talk) 11:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lynndonald (talk) 11:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Appears to be a chess enthusiast website, with no notability beyond other such websites. The article here sounds like a sales piece for the website itself. To be kept, it would need mentions on notable third-party sources or something to show a chess master runs it? Oaktree b (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Site is dormant but is highly respected by the chess community for the quality of its content. Current poor state of the article is not a reason to delete. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It's an interesting case. It is (or was, anyway) fairly well known in the chess world as one of the early popular chess websites. That's not reason to keep in itself, but it suggests to me that a good amount of whatever coverage it received would've been more than 20 years ago and thus require some digging to find. It'll probably be important to find material from outside of the chess world, since, somewhat counterintuitively, it has been popular enough to form partnerships with various chess publishers that means those chess publishers aren't going to be independent sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the older chess sites which provided quality content, it is frequently mentioned in actual paper chess books. It's recommended in Chess for Dummies and the like for example. [1] MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on the information presented in the previous AFD and what others have stated. Famous chess players, who have their own Wikipedia articles, have published articles there. Their alexa rating shows they are one of the most popular Chess sites on the internet, or were during the last AFD. If anyone has any chess magazines they can search, perfects find a review of it. Dream Focus 20:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well established, and with many high profile contributors, including one of the leading chess commentators, Yasser Seirawan, respected chess historians and authors like Tim Harding, Jeremy Spinrad and Taylor Kingston. Also former women's world champion, Susan Polgar. A 400+ page book has sprung from it's high quality content and quite honestly, there are few chess websites that would be more deserving of an article here. Brittle heaven (talk) 23:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I wish to vote keep per Brittle heaven well thought out rationality, but per notability guidelines, it should not have its own article. However, those same guidelines say "Web content that does not qualify for a separate, stand-alone article might be described in a relevant list of web content" which I think would be great. List of chess websites or something of the like. If consensus for keep does not hold, I would like to propose the page be renamed into that and we can begin working on adding other chess websites that do not have their own article. It will also be easier to find independent sources. Footlessmouse (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that all the notability guidelines have a disclaimer in the banner at the top which reads: This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Guidelines are suggestions, not absolute law like policies are. WP:IAR is a founding policy which reads: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Dream Focus 02:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per reasons above and sources indicated in the previous AfD and here. Barely found any news article about it, but I found a few books which briefly talk about the site and/or its segments: [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NWEB. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:03, 29 October 2020 (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.