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. Those arguing keep assert notability, but no reliable independent sources have been produced. JohnCD (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chess.com[edit]

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

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

as mentioned in an earlier prod that was removed, "All content is clearly promoting Chess.com. This article does not mention why the subject is significant. This article is all about its membership, forums etc. This article does not cite any reliable sources." Also, the entire article on chess.com is sourced to chess.com. That can't be reliable. The subject furthermore does not even demonstrate a prima facie case of being notable. No independent sources either. OGBranniff (talk) 06:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator Forgot to put name (talk) 08:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - the most significant sourcing that i could find was that it got the "top recommendation" for electronic chess training in Chess for Dummies but that is hardly a significant award and it gets a passing plug in a lot of other books (Computers for Seniors for Dummies (and the Laptops for Srs for Dummies update), How to Make Your Long Distance Relationship flourish Complete Idiot's Guide to Backdoor Adventures ) but those are all textbook examples of trivial in passing mentions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looking at the talk page, the article has had problems for years and hasn't improved. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs work but it is an important and notable company and website which has worked to provide education on line and organize real world tournaments et cetera. Phrage Frenta--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 00:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In response to "Tumadoireacht," the problem here (assuming for argument's sake your assertion is 100% true) is that there are no independent, reliable, and verifiable sources that say any of that. We just cannot assume that the website is notable. Therefore, Delete. OGBranniff (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Post the links here which says that it has worked to provide education online and organize real world tournaments. Forgot to put name (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tumadoireacht. This site seems to be notable. A quick google search shows that the reliable sources do exist. I aalso saw some print coverage of this site in a magazine, I might have to go dig up now... This article needs work, but can and should be saved. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources exists either in Google web search nor news nor books. How can you say that reliable sources exist for Chess.com? If it exists please post the link here. Perhaps you haven't checked the reliable sources guideline. Forgot to put name (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also did another "quick google search" for chess.com, and the only things that came up was chess.com itself. No third party reliable sources came up at all. I think that Tazerdadog is just blowing smoke. OGBranniff (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2012 (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.