Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ThreeChess

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. The sole keep argument is not grounded in applicable policies and guidelines. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ThreeChess

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article seems to be a promotion for the products of threechess.com, as opposed to the other articles we have on actual 3-player chess variants. Dicklyon (talk) 03:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – When ThreeChess page was created there were not any products on the website and the idea was to create unified rules for playing three player chess as there were none until the creation of ThreeChess, which was the first three player chess online. 10 years after there are still players that are interested in the game and playing online for free, so this page is not a promotional page, but a clear description of a three player chess variant. It has been discussed a lot and also there are discussions and a lot of edits on the wiki page, so in my opinion the page should not be deleted and it is notable for Wikipadia. Rrachkov (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2019 (EET)

Note that Rrachkov is a WP:SPA for ThreeChess. Dicklyon (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per concerns brought up by the nominator - this article is just on a single variant of chess created by a company to promote their website. It also seems to have been created by a WP:SPA whose only edits to Wikipedia were to create this page, and then promote it on various other pages. I am unable to find any reliable sources discussing this particular website, as well. All of the actual reliable sources being used in the article are actually referring to Three-player chess, not this specific website's variant of it. If it is deleted, its entry should also be removed from the Three-player chess article as well, for similar reasons of non-notability and promotion. Rorshacma (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability; per Roschama, RS coverage is connected to Three-player chess, not this subtopic. Any non-promotional content can be covered in Three-player chess. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone access the Time magazine article referenced in the article? [1] Its from Monday, Jan. 08, 1973. So how much coverage was there back then which we can access now through internet searches? Did any Chess magazines mentioned it? This can be redirected to Three-player chess. Dream Focus 00:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that, since the website that this article is about wasn't launched until 2010, a Times article from 1973 would likely not be talking about it. As was discussed before, this article tries to make itself seem legitimate by adding in sources about the history of an actual notable topic, Three-player chess, when the actual topic of the article is a very specific website that is being promoted where you can play it online. Rorshacma (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on what others have said, this seems to just be promotion for something that has no coverage anywhere for itself. Dream Focus 16:38, 11 November 2019 (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.