- 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. WjBscribe 10:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ChessCafe.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Non-notable website, does not meet WP:WEB. Alexa rank 151,667. Leuko 21:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As the article creator, I raise the following points.
- The article does not meet any of the three criteria listed at WP:WEB.
- However, ChessCafe.com is notable within the field of chess. I suggest that if it were a monthly print journal instead of an online journal, containing exactly the same content, this would not be an issue.
- There are at least five chess experts with Wikipedia articles who currently write for ChessCafe.com. There are others, such as Tim Krabbe and Edward Winter, who have contributed in the past.
- Articles from ChessCafe.com are cited as a reference in articles such as endgame tablebase and Henry Thomas Buckle.
- In order to satisfy WP:WEB, there would need to be an organization that bestows awards on excellent chess websites or recognizes them outside the field. I'm not aware of one. By a strict interpretation, the website of ChessBase would also fail WP:WEB; it's only because ChessBase has a software business that the website tags along in the article.
- See also: list of chess periodicals.
- Please forgive me for piling on. As you can understand, I am protective of articles I have worked on. YechielMan 00:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you can establish that "Heroic Tales: The Best of ChessCafe.com 1996-2001" is reasonably well published and reviewed, since it seems to be a compilation of the content of the site. It is also possible that press releases such as this may qualify the site for inclusion [1]. FrozenPurpleCube 00:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article updated and sources added. Author mentions Alexa rank, but it's the 5th most browsed chess site in the world [2]EliminatorJR Talk 01:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. 5th most visited chess-related site on the internet is pretty convincing counter to a n-n argument. However, I'd like to see non-trivial independent sources reporting on it. GoodnightmushTalk 01:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Yechielman. I removed the original prod on this article because a website with a fairly high Alexa rank, regular articles from top grandmasters, famous instructors like Dvoretsky, and a world championship arbiter (Gijssen) is notable whatever WP:WEB might say. The notability guidelines are guidelines, not straightjackets. Also the chesscafe book has independent reviews as I documented on the article's talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some more stuff to indicate notability. A book collecting the articles from the website, "Heroic Tales: The Best of ChessCafe.com 1996-2001", has at least two independent reviews, one by the chess instructor and International Master Jeremy Silman [3] and one by Sam Collins [4]. A bit of searching also showed that Chess Journalists of America has awarded two first prizes to chesscafe articles in 2005, one for the Novice Nook column ("Best Chess Column, Any Media"), and one for Living the American Dream ("Best Historical Article"). In addition A Guide to P-R3 got an honorary mention in the category "Best Web-Based Instruction". [5] In 2006 they were awarded first prize for When is a King Safe? ("Best Web-Based Analysis"), The Theory of Chess Improvement ("Best Web-Based Instruction"), and The Mysterious Chess Life of Rudolph L. Sze ("Best Historical Article")[6]. I think that indicates passing point 2 of WP:WEB. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment just so everybody knows Alexa rankings have been disfavored as criteria to keep a website. It's really better to look for genuine coverage, not those dubious numbers which rely on folks who have the bar installed. Oh, and I'm not certain that the Chess Journalists of America is a well known society, or that their awards are especially notable. So it might be better to keep looking. FrozenPurpleCube 14:49, 27 April 2007 (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.