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 no consensus on the applicability of guidelines; default to keep. Der yck C. 14:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Chessgames.com

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

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

Fails WP:WEB, I can only find passing mentions of the site, but no actual significant coverage from reliable sources. Esquivalience ^t 03:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 ( talk · contribs · guestbook) 10:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment Mentions (passing?): [1] [2] [3] [4] 野狼院ひさし u/ t/ c 14:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep I have used this free site daily for 10 years and have no financial connection. FWIW I'm quite familiar with wp:AFD discussion rules having attempted to remove Libertarian Party (UK). Chessgames.com has an invaluable database of master games, graded daily puzzles and biographies which should provide synergy with the Chess featured article for users of Wikipedia. Top grandmasters can also play consultation games with users. My efforts to use it as the authoritative reference it undoubtedly is for Henry Thomas Buckle's chessplaying record were thwarted when the reference was removed. The article lists his best games and record, what more is needed? Even if the article lacks newspaper references, if it reliably informs our readers it deserves to stay. This is an important principle & I believe WP:IAR applies. JRPG ( talk) 16:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

@ JRPG: See WP:PPOV. Even if the site is useful, it still needs to meet our notability guidelines. Usefulness is also subjective, so that the argument that keeping the article under WP:IAR is subjective.

Also, because I can't find any reliable sources to verify the article, (unless someone finds significant coverage from multiple reliable sources) the only article that can be produced that meets our verifiability guidelines is a very short article with very little information. Even a decent-sized article would have to rely on primary sources connected with the subject and self-published ones, thus not making the article a "reliable informer". Esquivalience ^t 20:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Greetings Esquivalience I'm very familiar with the rules, agree the article doesn't meet them(!) and am an enthusiastic wp:deletionist so ..uhm -please let me explain why this is only the 2nd occasion where I've supported 'keep.' AFD rules seem to miss a point for websites used extensively as Wikipedia references. I also supported 'keep' for They work for you which uses Hansard transcriptions for UK politicians parliamentary speeches. It's is faster, collates more information on individual politicians than the official Parliament.uk & it's a reliable reference used in hundreds of biographies. It can easily be checked against Hansard.

Similarly chessgames.com's importance is in providing Wikipedia chess users with a database of games which can be checked. Neither website needs an extensive Wikipedia article -they aren't important in their own right but it is useful for the user to know just a little bit about them.

Take 3 recent world champions, Magnus Carlsen has 3 references, Viswanathan Anand has 3 and Garry Kasparov has 2. A book on any of them will have details of many their games which can be used to verify the database but chessgames.com database entry on Kasparov alone has 2,349 games, far more I think than any single book. I would expect most if not all of the 948 grandmaster articles listed in Category:Chess grandmasters will have at least one reference. I think either WP:IAR applies or a minor change to accommodate websites like these is required.

Regards JRPG ( talk) 22:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I am aware that in their biographies, many of the chessgames contributors also say they have contributed articles to Wikipedia and I would expect them to have used the website as a reference. JRPG ( talk) 10:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I've no problems with a short article which includes a statement saying it's widely used as a chess-related reference in Wikipedia. If the site is deemed not-notable will that affects its use as a reference? If so, a large number of articles will need altering. JRPG ( talk) 19:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. It's a well established site going back to 2001, and is one of the most popular chess-related sites on the internet, despite its well publicized shortcomings. I think significant negative coverage in reliable sources counts towards establish notability too. (I'll fix the link to Olimpiu Urcan's chesscafe article to point to the wayback machine.)
  
  How to determine what is a "reliable source" with regard to chess? The fact is most mainstream news sources rarely cover chess, and when they do they often get the details wrong (e.g. not knowing the difference between a "game" and a "match"). Taylor Kingston's chesscafe.com, Edward Winter's chesshistory.com and Mark Crowther's theweekinchess.com are among the more reliable sources for chess information. Lubomir Kavalek's column in the Huffington Post is good, Leonard Barden's column in the Guardian is good... but the chess community will always be somewhat incestuous and self-referential.
  
  I really think wikipedia needs to re-examine its WP:WEB notability policy; just because a web site doesn't have an article written about it in the New York Times doesn't mean it's not notable. The current policy makes it too easy for people with an agenda to get articles about websites they don't like deleted; this has happened in the past with other chess-related websites. MaxBrowne ( talk) 10:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• If not independently notable, then a selective merge to List of Internet chess servers would be a functional WP:ATD. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply

It's not a chess server like ICC, FICS, chesscube, chess.com etc. It's more like a hybrid between an online database of chess games and a social networking site. There is no interface for members to play live real-time games against each other. MaxBrowne ( talk) 07:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply

The 'social networking' is limited to comments either on the game in question or very similar games. I don't regard it as notable -except for use as a Wikipedia chess reference -which is an excellent but inexplicably omitted reason for keeping it! I agree with MaxBrowne, WP:WEB notability policy needs to be examined. JRPG ( talk) 09:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Struck my notion above, per just below the above. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep as per WP:IAR. This particular article improves the encyclopedia; its removal would not improve Wikipedia, relative the topic's historical significance and the size of its member base. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:15, 15 April 2015 (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.