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.  Sandstein  22:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chess Giants (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)

Article subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG. I only found websites that either provide a download link for the game, or provide basic information about the software itself. References and sources providing secondary coverage about the article subject in-depth does not appear to exist at all, and the subject doesn't appear to have significant coverage -- or enough sources to support the creation of an article without the use of original research (required for passing GNG). Notability guidelines aside, the article also appears to be written like an advertisement (although that shouldn't directly assert the notability of the subject). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the author of this page, and this is my first edit on Wikipedia. Considering web notoriety alone, I understand very well that you think it can be deleted. Two things made me think it deserved a page: the fact that the List of chess software page mentions many poor, obscure and/or dead chess software, did make me think Chess Giants (which I use) deserved to be in this list. Also, the community of serious chess players probably less often read or write blogs than other geeks (chess isn't usually a high-tech subject). Also, it isn't written as an advertisement more than the Chess Titans page, of which I explicitly borrowed the style and layout (mostly because I'm unused to wikipedia text formatting). Yet I borrowed terms from this page precisely to avoid my text being misinterpreted as an advertisement, now I feel wrong of having done so. -- Montegozzi 2016-07-14 15:32 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montegozzi (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete much of this article is a WP:GAMEGUIDE, in addition to the reasons described above. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 23:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & Champion. for (;;) (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable, no coverage in reliable sources (which only seem to mention "chess giants" in the context of the history of chess).—J. M. (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2016 (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.