Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chess.com (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Chess.com
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is not a notable site. On occasion this is recreated, but since the last AfD there is nothing to add in terms of reliable sources. The reliability of TechCrunch is a matter of serious doubt, and besides that there's nothing except a mention or two in a local newspaper and on CNET. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  22:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Epicgenius (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Chess in general gets little coverage in mainstream media; it would be similarly difficult to find mainstream media sources for playchess.com or chesscube.com. The user who lobbied to have this article nominated for deletion is a banned user who has a particular grudge against chess.com. He also lobbied at least  two other editors (admins?) to do the same, knowing that if he nominated the article himself, his nomination would be rejected under WP:G5. This is a clear case of canvassing and Admin shopping. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: I believe there is a general concensus among WP:CHESS members that this site is notable in that it is one of the most popular chess sites on the internet. Of course one may question Alexa's methodology but there is no real question that this is a very popular website. Wikipedia is often the first port of call for people wanting more information about a website, and they could reasonably expect to find an article about Chess.com. This Norwegian paper notes that Magnus Carlsen has an account there and describes it as "the third major site for chess lovers" after Internet Chess Club and Playchess.com.
 * The claim of chess not getting covered is just plain bull. There are millions books about chess, hundreds printed every year. That they choose not to cover this website in detail says something about the notability of the website.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A reach. Millions? What are you basing this on? And what does that have to do with the above statement that "chess in general gets little coverage in mainstream media"? --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  04:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The popularity of the site is not a good argument, either. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Another invalid argument -- that a banned user w/ a grudge against Chess.com has lobbied. (Is the suggestion that the banned user has used hypnosis?! Or turned others into radio-controlled zombies?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * His lobbying is not the issue. Nor is Wiki Brah himself an argument for Keep. The point is justifying the article's recreation and new debate over it -- as the last one was tainted by socks. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  04:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No one asserted or implied Wiki Brah might be an argument for Keep. Re tainting, curious: How do you suppose there can *ever* be an AfD discussion re Chess.com which doesn't draw (new) sock(s)? (Do you plan to eliminate that sort of thing? How?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Insufficient (too weak, no in-depth coverage) RSs. (A troll taught me something re WP:GNG -- imagine that!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 *  Very weak keep  - Yes, sockpuppetry, otherstuffexists and bears, oh my! Discospinster, RedPen and the doctor are, IMO, beyond reproach. With one of them starting the AfD and a second (RedPen) apparently leaning toward delete, I'd say we're more than halfway to a deletion. I'm also not at all impressed with Alexa and other arguments that, gosh, it's so big it MUST be notable. Beyond all of that, the sourcing (now that I actually look at it) is really quite weak (even if we add in the Karasian bit, which we shouldn't). In fact, I'm really starting to wonder why I'm !voting "keep" at all. Part of me wants intellectual stuff like chess to get the same kind of attention as the latest tripe from whatever flash-in-the-pan is popular right now. That said, Wikipedia is not my therapist. Delete. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But a real therapist might recommend Wikipedia as therapeutic. (But probably not.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Question - for and : What are your thoughts on the clear WP:ADMINSHOP and WP:CANVAS here and its effect on consensus? This was not "hey can I have your opinion." It was a lengthy, targeted, campaign. We're starting with the discussion tilted, influencing the rest of the discussion as  makes quite clear. Would it be fair game now to go post on all of the self-identified inclusionists' pages? (rhetorical question) . --&mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  |  05:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned, I wasn't asked as an admin since there is no administrative action I could take in relation to this article (unless, for instance, it was clearly a copy of a previously deleted article, but I didn't check for that, accepting its recreation on good faith). I don't know what Summer makes clear besides her argument, and I don't know if there was a campaign of any kind. I do know that a couple of Wiki brah socks were blocked after CU, and I blocked one of them myself. One more thing: if you go to my user page and check my user categories, you'll see that I'm a self-identifying inclusionist Wikipedian, besides other honorable things (such as a worshiper of the ). You (plural) really shouldn't overdo the canvassing and adminshopping bit: that I'm also an admin has no bearing on this nomination, as any participant and certainly any closing admin should know., I'm thinking you're probably a better armchair psychologist than me. Drmies (talk) 05:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Clarification: I do NOT feel the discussion began with a slant toward deletion based on admin involvement. If anything, I'd think it would have started with a slant toward keep based on the sock involvement. Personally, I'm a fan of reverting all edits by socks of banned editors (and was inclined to keep this despite the state of the article). Yes, the socks brought admins to an article they might not have otherwise seen. But to say that the admins came here with an inclination toward supporting a sock's position is an extraordinary claim. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 05:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair responses. I don't mean to sound cynical. To be clear,, what I was referring to as "With one of them starting the AfD and a second (RedPen) apparently leaning toward delete, I'd say we're more than halfway to a deletion". That's not to say anybody wouldn't have voted the same way otherwise or that anybody other than the sock acted in bad faith, but as you point out, when you get respected Wikipedians to weigh in early by canvassing them, you project something different from if you saw the article nominated by someone you didn't know, with no other opinions so far (cascading effects, social pressures, other group decision making stuff). So not a judgment of individuals, just of the integrity of the procedure. Regardless, it's not so egregious or out of the ordinary for me to belabor any further. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  06:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - the sources aren't spectacular as is, but sufficient, I think. Here are a few various sources not presently included on the article that might help:
 * USCF: Chess.com to Host 2013 US Chess League (re: United States Chess League)
 * NY Post article about a lawsuit the site is in over cheating allegations
 * USCF covers chess.com buying chessvibes
 * not an ideal source, but a popular blog post by a former chess.com employee talking about the company structure
 * one of a few articles about the founder, Erik Allebest, on chess and other business-related topics
 * Chess.com accepts bitcoin - most of the activity on this topic is on Reddit and bitcoin message boards, though.
 * a large number of notable chess players with WP pages write for or work for chess.com, and several outside sides point to their work (though typically minor mentions). No great sources to support notability in that regard, but for anybody on the fence at this point who might not see anything setting this site apart from any other non-notable chess site, here are a few, with primary links: Ben Finegold (wp), Bruce Pandolfini (wp), Jeremy Silman (wp), Gregory Serper (wp), Dan Heisman (wp), Jesse Kraai (wp), Eric Schiller (wp), Roman Dzindzichashvili (wp), Gregory Kaidanov (wp), Judit Polgar (wp), skipping the linking...they're easy to find, Melikset Khachiyan, Aleksandr Lenderman, Timur Gareev, Sam Shankland... --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  06:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep: This article certainly has enough reliable sources (I just added a source to the New York Times in case there was any doubt that the other sources weren't enough) and chess.com is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, chess sites on the internet and is definitely notable. However, Wiki Brah constantly does all he can to remove all traces of references to chess.com on wikipedia, which is the only reason this is even being debated at all. Q6637p (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that March 13, 2010 NY Times article that you think is decisive, was deemed mere passing mention in previous discussions. Specifically, here is *all* that article has to say about Chess.com: "Chess.com also offers free play and basic instruction for beginners; on Wednesday night, more than 3,000 people were logged on to the site."Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The totality of the sources that Rhododendrites brought up is non-trivial, for instance the USCF source on their purchase of ChessVibes is quite substantial. Although this is not very notable, it should be enough to satisfy WP:GNG requirements. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * comment the threshold at WP:GNG states "has received significant coverage in reliable sources " (plural) - it does not say "has received trivial coverage in a lot of sources". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  05:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article is not dependent on TechCrunch, but TechCrunch is a perfectly adequate source for the purposes for which it is used, i.e. establishing what kind of website chess.com is, when it was launched, and noting the takeover of chesspark. Just because the NY Times wrote a critical piece on TechCrunch doesn't mean there's any reason to doubt its reliability on these details. The fact that TechCrunch covered the launch of chess.com also lends weight to the claim of notability. Note also that at least two business oriented books have references to Erik Allebest and chess.com: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Erik+Allebest%22+%22chess.com%22&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1. I don't have access to these but they are potential print sources. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Nominator was canvassed and one of the only other two delete voters was. And some of the sources have sufficient reliability and coverage. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up.See where I screwed up. 11:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep the sources seem borderline for general notability but regardless being the most popular chess site means the absence of a Wikipedia article is a downer to Wikipedia itself. It can't be the prevailing view to on one hand, to stress coverage of Wikipedia per the FA's on the main page, and at the other hand have an absence of this article. There are a number of commentaries that, to my mind, rightly raise an eyebrow at Wikipedia's previous absence of this article, the forum at chess.com itself but also an alternative encyclopedia. I can just see a journalist reporting, "Wikipedia's says they have broad coverage but in practice they don't even have an article on chess.com the world most popular chess site with over 8 million members, a site that is more active then Wikipedia itself." So to that end I say even if ignore rules has to be applied, Keep it. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 13:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I checked the reliable source noticeboard for TechCrunch as this was specifically mentioned by the nominator. The topic of whether TechCrunch is a reliable source occurs four times in the archive, and in each case the use of TechCrunch as a reliable source was the prevailing view. If someone doesn't believe TechCrunch is a reliable source for this article then raising the matter on the RS noticeboard would seem to be an appropriate first step. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 13:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's an accurate summary, there seem to be more than four discussions in RSN archives, here is a page containing a summary of some put together by in April 2012 where he concluded "It looks like there is a real split of opinion here" re TechCrunch as reliable source or not. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep due to the sources supporting it for being notable (but just barely). Epicgenius (talk) 14:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Not the least notable item on the list of Internet chess servers. Cobblet (talk) 07:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Looks notable enough based on the list of sources Rhododendrites has dug up. Cobblet (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone might take that comment as your rationale! (Of course it would be an invalid keep argument for AfDs. So what is your real keep rationale then?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Pretty much everything that has been said already; in particular, Rhododendrite's list of sources. My point (which I thought was self-evident) is that one is not likely to find a similar amount of notable information for several of the other servers that we currently have articles for. I don't see why we should be holding chess.com to a higher standard than the rest. Cobblet (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I realise that Cobblet's argument is a variation on "other stuff exists", but does it not strike anyone else as extremely suspicious that this site has its wikipedia article constantly targeted while nobody lifts a finger against the articles for chesscube, schemingmind etc? And that it's always (no exaggeration) the banned user Wiki brah who's ultimately behind it? It actually impacts on wikipedia's credibility if we cover almost every commercial chess server except chess.com. I'd go so far as to say that it violates WP:NPOV. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Understood it the first time. But what other entries have or don't have elsewhere is irrelevant. Do I have to actually point out? ... This AfD is about Chess.com and its notability. Other topics that do or don't exist elsewhere or together in lists are irrelevant to said discussion. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Why does the nominator specifically want to delete the article on chess.com when we have articles on less notable chess servers not currently on AfD? That's all I'm really asking. The consensus to keep the page is fairly clear at this point, and I don't have anything to add in support of that. I'm only pointing out that there are probably other pages for which an AfD would be more likely to succeed. Sorry if you think that's off-topic; I'm sorry to have wasted your time. I didn't think anyone was going to be as interested in my comments as you are now. Cobblet (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stop mischaracterizing this thread. Was interested in one thing: your keep rationale (which wasn't originally provided). Please stop clarifying an AfD-irrelevant point - I understood it the first time (and the second time, and the third time). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see how I've mischaracterized anything. And you are under no obligation to read anything I write. Cobblet (talk) 07:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't think anyone was going to be as interested in my comments as you are now. Was never interested in your comments - only ever in your keep rationale, originally absent. (Clear how you mischaracterized now?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You were interested in hearing me contribute further to the discussion. That is what I meant by "interested in my comments". The provocative tone of your rhetorical questions invites a response, so I have done so. If you want me to stop, either stop replying to me or change your tone. Cobblet (talk) 10:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Go read again what I asked. I specifically & only asked about your keep rationale. Now you like to stuff words in my mouth You were interested in hearing me contribute further and broaden what I asked to justify repeating irrelevant comments I understood the first time but wasn't interested in them, and certainly not in your repetition and expansion of them, which I made clear but there was no stopping you no matter what I wrote. You are coming from a position after that to reprimand me re my "tone"!?!? Go figure. (You want a positive suggestion, Cobblet?? -- You're good with words when you want to be. Practice that more often when you read words from me from now on, rather than using them as a manipulative springboard for your forceful soapboxing, how about it!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your distinction between "asking about my keep rationale" and "interested in hearing me contribute further", because to me it's obvious that the former is an example of the latter. I also don't understand how you interpreted my later remarks as a reprimand and find it unfortunate that you did so, for I have expressed neither criticism nor disapproval of what anything you've written. I only wish to make it clear that how you express yourself determines whether I care to respond to you. For instance, it is never true that "there is no stopping me no matter what you write". You can write nothing. Cobblet (talk) 11:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, if I ask a waitress for a cheeseburger and she brings chicken noodle soup instead, it doesn't justify doing that because "Hey, you asked for food, soup is an example of food, so I don't understand the distinction between what you asked and what I served." You don't have a right to manipulatively alter my Q for your own purpose of expanding irrelevant soapboxing comments, and even after my efforts to stop you from doing, further falsely attribute responsiblity to me for it (I didn't think anyone was going to be as interested in my comments as you are now.). I told you several times I wasn't interested as they were irrelevant to the AfD. Then after twisting my words continuously and my objecting to that you turn around and reprimand me for my "tone" (The provacative tone of your rhetorical questions). Give it a rest, Cobblet. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Originally my comments were intended as a rationale, for what I really meant to say was: "I believe chess.com is notable enough for a stand-alone article; in fact, I believe it's more notable than other chess servers we have articles for. Surely it cannot be "not notable" and yet simultaneously be more notable than something else." It was you who twisted my words to make them sound irrelevant, but I let it slide because I assumed good faith on your part. If you're going to compare my good-faith responses to you to someone messing up your order in a restaurant, I have nothing more to say to you—nobody on Wikipedia is at your beck and call. It's impossible to have an intelligent discussion with you anyway when you choose to assume bad faith on my end when interpreting anything I say. I pity the sort of person who treats any comment regarding their conduct as a reprimand or criticism; or lambasts others for mischaracterizing them while they remain oblivious to when they do it to others. Cobblet (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're full of BS, Cobblet ... Your orig !vote did not express your keep rationale, or you wouldn't have provided your keep rationale in the first sentence in response to my asking what it was. The fact that you didn't communicate what you now say you wanted to communicate (what I really meant to say was) is not by any fault of mine, so you have no basis whatever to accuse that I twisted [your] words. (You are so full of BS it's amazing -- What manipulation!) The fact that you misinterpret the restaurant analogy into an objection that you think it meant that I think you should be at my service (nobody on Wikipedia is at your beck and call) shows real shallowness or even willful misinterpretation to make me look stupid -- that analogy was valid in showing the invalidity of your redesign of what I was asking, for your own purposes. And I don't "choose to assume bad faith" or willfully misinterpret what you say, Cobblet, I see what is in front of me and I've objected to your manipulation of it for your own ends. (Repeating and expanding AfD-irrelevant comments I didn't ask about, yet you tried to credit me for not understanding them and being interested in them -- all bogus assertions.) I don't need your "pity" for anything Cobblet, I've called you out fairly on your manipulative communication tactics and false blames, you have no right to make comments about my "conduct" or "tone" when you have been so manipulative and dodgy and take no responsibility for what you have written here, instead at every turn attempting to put blame and responsibility on me. Sorry but I see thru that kind of transparent crap, even if you have difficulty seeing your own conduct for what it is. I've accused you of mischaracterizing this thread with your unwarranted & baseless assertion that I was "interested" in your non-keep rationale comments, and now you take that and further twist into accusing me of "mischaracterizing others" when you don't define or limit that accusation, whereas mine was well-defined and well-limited. (In other words, you like to get into mud fights and baseless accusations. Sorry -- not for me. You need to go on the Jerry Springer Show for that kind of thing.) (BTW I simply objected to your mischaracterizing the thread, and explained how you did that when you denied it. That doesn't exactly equate to "lambasting" someone, yet you use that hyperbolic term to describe my objection. You're masterful at BS manipulation, Cobblet, but I'm not buying. [Equating my editsum to MaxBrowne as "personal attack" equivalent to his series of them and on his User page was another example of your wonderous ability to express off-base and ridiculous compares and distorted/false accusation. Sorry I have no respect for you -- you manipulate and play political games with false accuses and smear tactics -- I can't respect that sort of thing. Sorry, I'm not going to play your game and say I "pity" you and "can't have an intelligent conversation with you" as you have done to me, because I'm not into that kind of tacky, insulting/offensive false/manipulative out-of-bounds type of argument. You can seriously go blow.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. The sourcing supports a claim of notability, although it is close.Tazerdadog (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Thiss deleetion is nuttin more than an organized campain against one of the greatest and besst web sites in the world: CHESS DOt COM!  This site has been profiled in depth in all major sports related and journals.  The creater of Chess.com is a Geenious.  It is almost like Chess.com's opponents are gettin PAID from an outside source...like an rival Chess server.  Chess dotcom is a very significant organization.  Would you deleet an article on New York City just because you didn't liek it?  End of story.  /thread. Hector the Toad (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC) — Hector the Toad (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Hello? Obviousley that "Summer PHS" is part of the anti-CHESS DOT COMM CONSPIRACY. /thread. Hector the Toad (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Someone is trying to bludgeon this discussion with excessive commentary on other people's posts. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't nice to make nameless accusations. (I trust I don't need to explain *why* that isn't nice!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't "nice" to bully the participants in an Afd discussion either. Over and out. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking you didn't get the meaning of my post ... I have no problem at all with you being not nice, if you want, to whomever was "bludgeoning" (assuming they were bludgeoning). It's the *unnamed* part of your accusation I was referring to. When you make an unnamed accusation, then assigning blame to whomever you intended becomes guesswork, so in effect, you're leaving open to others the cuprit may be anyone responding to thread posts, including those who are innocent of said blame/accuse. (And that's what is not nice.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Pointing out proper procedure and policy per prerequisites for potential pruning from the 'pedia is not to "bully" is it? Several users have presented the main issue here:  This AFD is the result of a CONSPIRACY.  This conspiracy has been in place for YEARS and involves scores of editors, administrators, and those that call the shots behind the scenes.  I strongly suspect NSA and/or CIA involvement as well, per this: . Hector the Toad (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * as well as the Illuminati, the Masons, the International Fraternity of Ironworkers, aliens from the planet Qekxistams, and leading them all is my great great great grand mother who is the unliving queen of the vampires.


 * Delete. This site has never been a reputable source for chess players. MrsHudson (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * comment being "well regarded" is not a criteria for an article, (see Weekly World News or Adolf Hitler) . What matters is whether third parties have covered the subject in a significant manner. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Looking at it currently, there's a wide range of reputable sources supporting the article. Gizza ( t )( c ) 10:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But do any of them provide "significant coverage" required for notability? (Which one[s]?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep It is my view there is enough reliable sources to show notability to enough of an extent. Blethering  Scot  21:32, 15 December 2013 (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.