Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chess.com (3rd nomination)

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 speedy keep. Clearly a bad faith nomination by a now blocked sock puppet. Any discussion here will always fall back to a discussion about the nominator. Anyone wishing to renominate this page should not consider this close an endorsement of the article's suitability for Wikipedia. kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chess.com

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

This is a non notable website. Fails GNG since it lacks the requisite "substantial coverage" prong and "multiple reliable sources." The substantial coverage requirement is failing more. There are multiple passing mentions yes, but not substantial coverage. Multiple passing mentions do not "add up" to substantial coverage. That is an important distinction. This page has been deleted before for failing GNG. The second AFD was "no consensus" due to persistent disruptive users rallying support for the article even though it has no substantial coverage, re "I like it" and claiming that the article was somehow "under attack." These are not reasons to keep an article contra policy. GNG. Jojo Fiver (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Nomination by probable sockpuppet with no substantial editing history. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The nominator has been banned now. --ChessFiends (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SK #3: the nominator has been identified as the sock of a banned user, and no substantive comments have been added to this page that would be a basis for keeping this AfD open. As mentioned at WP:SK, this nomination page may also be subject to speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G5. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2014 (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.