Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SparkChess


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

SparkChess

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not seeing evidence this passes WP:GNG (either in the article or elsewhere). Article material is almost entirely unsourced or primary sourced. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 12:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 12:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 12:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - I could only find some trivial mentions, and the ones in the article are either not independent or there is no in depth coverage to meet WP:GNG.--Rogerx2 (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * A search for 'chess' on Google lists SparkChess in 3rd-4th place, so it's not obscure. Shouldn't it be preferable to improve the page rather than delete? Gaspyy (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Improving is generally the best way to go, to be sure. :) but the issue isn't the quality of the article, but the subject itself. "Notability" is a measure of significance to justify having an article, but it's based on bigger Wikipedia principles like WP:V and WP:NPOV. Basically, if something hasn't received significant coverage by reliable sources, there's no way to (a) justify including it in an encyclopedia that's based exclusively on preexisting sources, or (b) write an article about it that isn't either a short stub or excessively promotional. Google hits can be an indication of notability, but doesn't stand in for actual sources. If you could link some sources (books, journals, magazines, high-quality websites, newspapers, etc.) that have no connection to SparkChess and which provide in-depth coverage of it, that's what would swing this discussion towards keep. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: I found no significant coverage in reliable sources per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2017 (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.