Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Internet chess servers

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet chess servers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Original research, unsourced as a whole, and not the subject of notable sources. Hefha72 (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The vast majority on this list have WP articles, and those that don't have references. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 22:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If it is unsourced, then put "citation needed" tags on where appropriate, instead of lobbing a delete bomb. There is no definition of "notable sources" in Wikipedia. An article subject requires notability. References on article content require verifiability and reliability. This AfD sponsored by the SPA IP is a mess. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a list-based article and as such, falls under the policy WP:LIST. That policy says it is perfectly acceptable to create lists of Wikipedia articles to organize subject matter. The article is one such list; most of the entries are links to Wikipedia articles. The list entries that are not links to articles could be subject to deletion, but that is no reason to delete the whole list-based article. The article could use some improvement, in particular, it could use a lead section. But that is a surmountable problem (see WP:SURMOUNTABLE for details) and is not grounds for deletion. The article should be kept and improved. --Mark viking (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mark viking, and other keep votes. It seems strange that this AfD is the nominator's only known contribution to Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Bad nomination; however, this appears to be a Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not issue. Specifically Wikipedis is not a directory. This "list" is directory of places where chess can be played. Categories (Category:Internet chess servers) and list articles normally complement eachother; however, this is a case where the category should be the only case because of the WP:NOT issue. Ryan Vesey 05:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Ryan, the section "Wikipedia is not a directory" lists seven bullet items (descriptions and examples of "not a directory"). Which one of those do you feel the chess server list falls into? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business". Ryan Vesey 17:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, you have identified point 4 at WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Here is the full description of point 4:

  For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. Likewise an article on a business should not contain a list of all the company's patent filings. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article.

  I don't see how any of that relates to the list of chess servers! (You do?! Please explain.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Lists are allowed and I consider this list to be within the policy of Wikipedia. JunoBeach (talk) 11:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory or game directory. OGBranniff (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  OGBranniff, it appears you only activity on Wikipedia is participating in AfD's involving chess related topics. Your knowledge of the process and policies suggests you are an experienced editor despite your edit count. That said, the reason why directory is an ambiguous word is because directories are assembled with information for the purposes of navigating readers towards a point of business contact where articles such as List of mail servers are informational. See Category:Internet-related lists. Mkdw^talk 20:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wikipedia is full of such lists. I'm honestly not even sure why this is an issue.Tigersfan (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I certainly think there are merits to WP:NOTDIR #4 here. A directory by definition is a "listing [of] individuals or organizations alphabetically or thematically with details such as names, addresses, and telephone numbers." Where I think WP:NOTDIR loses it jurisdiction over WP:LIST is the fact that the business information is not listed and that the list is merely a list of Wikipedia articles on chess servers. I am in strong support of removing the entries which do not have standalone articles to keep it indiscriminately away from becoming a wholesale directory. Mkdw^talk 20:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I have removed the entries not linked to standalone articles. --Mark viking (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A bad idea, not supported by WP:CSC. The list is so short that there is no present danger of it becoming indiscriminate. If the list were to grow very long then pruning entries without an article might be in order. BTW, the benchmark given at WP:CSC is 32K. The page is currently 1,142 bytes. Quale (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are omitting large portions of WP:CSC. The guideline only applies if it's a 'complete list of every item that is verifiably a member of a the group.' The list at present does not show servers belonging to a specific grouping. Subsequently that is the requirement to include non-notable businesses. If the business is notable and should be on the list, it must meet WP:GNG in which a single citation does not show that. The number of servers is astronomical and items with out an article or established notability should be removed as indiscriminate information. Mkdw^talk 03:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not. The specific grouping is internet servers on which people can play chess. This is a different and much smaller grouping than all chess-related websites. All chess-related websites would be an indiscriminate list. BTW, at Talk:List of Internet chess servers you seem to be confused about the difference between a server and software. This is not a list of software. Quale (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep predominantly notable entries, meets WP:CLN. Jclemens (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Pragmatically speaking, and irrespective of procedure and policy, I found this an indispensable entry. I am not sure where else I could have got such a comprehensive unbiased peer-reviewed list so quickly.Stormerne (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Internet chess server. Andrew³²⁷ 02:57, 12 February 2013 (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.