Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet Chess Club

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. NW (Talk) 22:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Chess Club

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

DELETE NN chess club. JBsupreme (talk) 06:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Gulp! I may be a bridgeplayer but even I know this is highly notable. The oldest,[1] biggest[2] etc online chess playing site. used by all/most of the top GMs. Plenty of sources here that address ICC directly -, even in mainstream publications [3][4][5][6] etc, mentioned in a pile of chess books [7] etc. Of course the page needs sourcing and a really good clean up but that is an editorial matter. What research did the nominator carry out before nomination? Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Bridgeplayer. Bubba73 (talk), 17:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment It definitely needed a lot of work but now it is getting attention. Bubba73 (talk), 12:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's a poor article and requires lots of cleanup, but not AFD material. Evidence of attention by international media (The New York Times) is a strong indication of notability. Like Bridgeplayer I also wonder if WP:BEFORE was done. SunCreator (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable. --AStanhope (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has coverage required by WP:GNG. It is a poor looking article, but that isn't a reason for deletion. Ironholds (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a problem with many of the sources currently cited -- am I to understand that http://members.cox.net/cpetroff/FICS/ is acceptable as a source in an encyclopedia? Its a personal webpage of someone at cox.net. We might as well cite Geocities. JBsupreme (talk) 08:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issues of source suitability is appropriate to discuss on the articles talk page. SunCreator (talk) 09:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Its been seven months since the last post about anything on the talk page, and most of the other post are from years ago. Before nominating an article, use tags and discuss things on the talk page, thus saving us all some time. Dream Focus 10:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The New York Times articled sited says "For stronger players, the Internet Chess Club is worth checking out. Home to the Web's oldest for-profit chess server, the club now claims 26,000 paid subscribers, said the company's president, Daniel Sleator, a professor of computer science at Carnegie Mellon University. He said that about 300 grandmasters and 500 international masters play at the site at no cost." Dream Focus 09:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If a club with subscribing members like Shakhriyar Mamedyarov, Leinier Dominguez, Nigel Short, Teimour Radjabov, Magnus Carlsen, Alexander Grischuk, Hikaru Nakamura, Vugar Gashimov, Yue Wang, Ruslan Ponomariov, Levon Aronian, Loek Van Wely, Maxime Vachier-Lagrave, Jan Smeets etc.. is considered an "NN chess club" etc.., then I don't know what would constitute a notable chess club. Of course, this is not a policy-based argument for keeping it, but those have been presented by others. Disclosure: I have previously operated an account on ICC. decltype (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The most important online chess playing site there is. Hundreds of Grandmasters play on it. Easily notable.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is some sort of 'stop wasting everybody's time' type of deletion proposal. Loosmark (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2009 (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.