Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Chess Network

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. W.marsh 20:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Chess Network

Fails WP:WEB. Diminutive chess playing site. Drawn to my attention via the afd debate on Ten Ton Hammer. Notably, somone who identifies with TTH comments on their own forum that "Also, something I found hilarious, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Network exists for the Chess Network that TTH's parent company owns. It's smaller then TTH itself. So uhhh.". (First post at [1] - scroll to top of page)

So, as you say. Uhhh. Or as we say, Bye. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Delete --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - this is a component of the effort to increase the coverage of chess websites and a significant chess site along with Chess Live, Playchess, Free Internet Chess Server and Internet Chess Club. For balance we should have an article on each of the sites. If this is deleted then a new article will need to be created to link them all together. I have added some references to meet WP:WEB. Susan Polger is one of the foremost chess educators and Chessbase the leading chess internet site. When they speak positively about a website then it is notable. Please retain it. BlueValour 04:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have upgraded my view in the light of the excellent cleanup by Shrumster. BlueValour 22:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Only 68 players online? Sounds pretty small to me. — brighterorange (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - latest estimate is about 10,000 subscribers. Smaller than Internet Chess Club with 30,000+ but still pretty good for a subscription site. Several hundred would be online at any one time (you can log on free on to check if required). BlueValour 07:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. I was originally a skeptic upon seeing the "Subscriptions and Trials" section of the article (seems like promotion) but upon seeing the references, it seems pretty notable and well-known. That "Subscriptions" section should be axed though, and the rest of the article filled out. I'll see if I can clean up the references to look more professional. Shrumster 17:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I fixed the article as much as I could. The site itself is very, very notable, it seems. Actual recognition by the United States Chess Federation...can't get any more notable than that. A number of masters and grandmasters are members of the site, including three (notable enough to have their own Wikipedia entries) I've included in the article. If they play on it, it's good enough for me. Shrumster 18:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Actual recognition by the United States Chess Federation...can't get any more notable than that." Nothing US-centric about that view, then :) --Tagishsimon (talk)

- Comment. Oh, and to directly address WP:WEB, rule #1: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. I've already fixed the references section with regards to this. I doubt that favourable reviews from known chess grandmasters would be "~~non~~-trivial". Shrumster 18:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - erm I think that you mean "trivial" :-) BlueValour 22:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Whoops, my bad. :) Shrumster 00:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Shrumuster. He seems to have addressed the issues that brought the VfD. --Falcorian ^(talk) 16:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - seems to be notable (10,000 subscribers is not that low). Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 02:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Shrumuster. He seems to have addressed the issues that were brought to the AfD. Mathmo ^Talk 14:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Time to close this as keep under WP:SNOW, I think. If I did but know how. --Tagishsimon (talk)
Reply, you would need to be an admin to close this under WP:SNOW. If there had been no deletes at all you could have closed this yourself as speedy keep by withdrawing your nomination for this AfD. Mathmo ^Talk 09:55, 2 February 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.