Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ChessGames.com
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Delete --JForget 01:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ChessGames.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
I declined to speedy delete this article as it isn't blatant advertising and there is what could be considered an assertion of notability. I do think this article should be deleted however. Notability is weak and there are no independent sources that discuss the website. WjBscribe 09:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. An awesome website actually, however, doesn't seem to be widespread, fails WP:WEB. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 11:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of process. As the article itself is not tagged for deletion, this speedy delete is out-of-process and should be closed. A new one should be opened when it is tagged, and then discussion could move forward. As it is, readers of the article are unaware of this deletion debate. And a late tag at this point would be unfair to those readers. Themindset (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like my tag was removed. This AfD can run for a few extra hours to compensate for that if you would like, but an AfD does not become "out of process" because a third party removes the tag. Please find some sources to support the notability of this subject... WjBscribe 14:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A late tag and an extension of the AFD is the proper way to handle it even if WJBscribe had forgotten to tag the article, which isn't the case. Forcing a new discussion is just unnecessary, especially when the outcome is so clear. --Dhartung | Talk 21:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete blatant advertising Doc Strange (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete spammy, no notability asserted (besides ho-hum member numbers), and of course no reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no attribution of notability to independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 21:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable. Oh, and I was originally the one who nominated it for speedy deletion. Later, I realized it was not a BLATANT advertisement (which is the criteria for speedy deletion), so I decided to remove the speedy deletion tag as per a discussion I had on a similar wikipedia page. Unknowingly I removed (what I thought) was the speedy deletion tag (but was actually an AfD tag). Sorry about that. Mitsein (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Twsx. I like the website a lot as well because it has several useful functions, but it simply does not meet the WP:WEB guidelines. For numbers, the size of the game database is large but not exceptional, several databases have millions of games. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 12:07, 21 November 2007 (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.