Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thief (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The result was   Withdrawn. I think that one reliable source that shows notability is fine. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 00:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thief (chess)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. It seems like it is non-notable like most free online games. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 00:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * neutral. There are lots of references to this program when googleing the client. The sources however don't seem to satisfy WP:RS, or provide only trivial coverage. Still the multitude of mentions of the software leads me to believe there is a fair chance that there sources, I just haven't found them. I'll search some more, but for now, I'm on the fence. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC).
 * Keep Relevant in the internet chess community, although the article does not (yet) adequately demonstrate it. Many thousands of people use this program. I'll see if I can improve it when I can find the time. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * this makes me lean towards keep. Significant coverage, a WP:RS reliable source. However, for now, it's just the one. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2008 (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.