- 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Chess960@home (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)
Article contains no assertion of notability. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 13. Snotbot t • c » 20:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there are no secondary sources. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete web content with no notability presented. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete yet another of these articles written in future tense that have gone stale. This one dates from 2006 which is ancient in Internet time. I was surprised to see the web site still there, but shows nobody has used the service in a while. W Nowicki (talk) 16:40, 16 June 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.