Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business chess


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Business chess

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I see no proof that this game is notable. SyG (talk) 15:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC) 64]] magazine is a prestigious chess publication and should be considered a reliable source.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources indicate otherwise. But does need clean up and to be wikified. Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * keep Some users work on corrections. Not as fast, as desired, but the text will be corrected.--Zara-arush (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs cleanup though. RJaguar3 &#124;  u  &#124;  t  19:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Seems to be a translation of the article on the Russian Wikipedia. Difficult for me to evaluate the quality of the Russian sources - I would have to trust the judgment of Russian speakers. I do know however that the [[64 (chess magazine)|
 * Comment I've marked it with on its talk page; although I don't speak or read Russian the structure of the article, images and so on are a fairly sure bet that it is, and translated pages need to be properly attributed. Si Trew (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve.  Dewritech (talk)  20:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, as there is no reason not to if it can be rewritten. It's not like some card game that 5 kids play in their clubhouse. Also, I don't think that the writers main language is English, so it is likely the best he could do. Old Al (Talk) 21:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The 15 or so sources to things like chess websites and chess magazines is what qualifies as "notable". The nomination was based on "I see no proof that this game is notable."  Where there are verifiable sources in the article itself, then that argument usually fails, unless there's a doubt about the reliability of the sources.   The test of notability is not whether something deserves to be noticed by independent sources, but whether it actually is noticed.  Mandsford 21:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Most sources are either videos from YouTube (which I do not see as notable) or publications from the author of the Wikipedia article. There is no mention of, for example, how many people practise this activity, or if there is a federation about it, or a school. SyG (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've done a first-pass copy edit and removed and . (I've left, though I understood it.) Si Trew (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of sources including National television coverage. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.