Why doesn't wikipedia have a chess.com article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_chess_servers

They have an article just for Yahoo! chess, but NOTHING for chess.com. That's kind of odd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chess.com

lol

wikipedia frowns upon discussing other chess sites and comparing them to this one. 

or by the wikiworld anyway...

An admin from Wikipedia posted a thread on chess.com saying how chess.com wasn't important enough.

He didn't get much more than a 'meh'.

They are afraid someone will profit from providing massive value to the chess community.

It's the "punish achievement open source everybody gets something free from the hard work of the deserving while those who deserve the profit from their hard work get punished" delusion mentality.

Complete idiocy.

And, Chess.com IS historically as well as currently completely and significantly relevant to the chess world.

To snub it is to snub searchers of Wikipedia wanting the facts (who they claim to serve).

Get over it scarcity cats...people are making money right now and there's nothing you can do about it.

The thread was deleted by the admins.

Uhm, who are you talking to? Nobody except you is talking about making money or open-source anything. Please save your rants against open source for threads where somebody actually mentions the topic.

Well that would be advertising .....for free. They are more like a library.

Didn't I read a post (can't find it obviously) to the effect that a senior editor of Wiki was a member here, became disenchanted with certain forum posters and moderators, left in a snit, and is now enacting his petty revenge?   Please feel free to post pictures of people leaving in snits....

claimed to be a senior editor of Wiki...lol.

You clearly didn't read the article deletion notes or have no concept of what relevance means or else you'd know exactly why the information introduced in the discussion regarding the "reason" for Chess.com's deletion completely mentions "promoting Chess.com", "it's membership",etc.

Anyone with a lick of sense could deduce "promoting its membership" is referring to membership promotion/profiting, and would know "the free encyclopedia" is with the open source type format associated with the "free for all" crowd.

If you don't like the topic discussed, perhaps you shouldn't participate in the discussion, but asking me to withhold my opinion on the topic at hand while you falsely accuse me of discussing a topic not mentioned that is clearly mentioned, isn't relevant at all.

Unless you were the one who claimed to be the senior editor and thus were biased (and still incorrect).

Ahhhh it looks like the Braves .... is saying ...... or he about to spit on him.

@learningthemoves:  "open source" refers to software being made available to the public under certain permissive terms, as opposed to closed-source programs like Microsoft Office, which you can not easily download and reuse as you see fit. Wikipedia is coincidentally open source because anybody can download the wikipedia source code and run their own instance of the mediawiki software, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether anybody can edit wikipedia or not. 

Anyone with a lick of sense could deduce "promoting its membership" is referring to membership promotion/profiting, and would know "the free encyclopedia" is with the open source type format associated with the "free for all" crowd.

The objections about "promoting its membership" have nothing to do with whether wikipedia is free or not and whether chess.com is a commercial entity or not, which is what I was objecting to. Wikipedia doesn't allow people to create pages that are basically advertisements in disguise because most users don't want to see those kinds of pages. It has nothing to do with open-source vs closed-source or for-profit vs not-for-profit entities, except insofar as for-profit entities are the ones that are so often adding vacuous content to wikipedia in order to drive people to their web site. Wikipedia doesn't hate chess.com because they make money, they just don't want vacuous marketing material on the site because their users don't generally want to see that kind of material.

Thanks for clarifying that. The lack of any distinction between marketing material and a genuine article alerting those interested in chess to the existence of the site which is coincidentally commercial is what I think is the problem.

Yes, it's obvious the site does have commercial services available in the form of membership access to various tools, community, instructional training, etc., but the site itself is noteable because of the large volume of chess enthusiasts who are members all across the world.

If I didn't know anything about chess at all and I happened upon Wikipedia, I'd be glad to know about Chess.com and would feel sleighted if I found out about the site later from another source.

I would wonder why the editor in question went to such great lengths to keep the people who were thirsty for knowledge about noteable sites dedicated to chess from learning about Chess.com

Wouldn't you?

Despite arguements to the contrary asserting objectivity, it becomes obvious there's "someone on the inside" who has an axe to grind just by virtue of the omission itself. Willful intent to neglect its timely inclusion would seem a crime against the users interested in chess knowledge and would be like mentioning fast food hamburger restaurants and not listing McDonald's for one reason or another. Certainly not the mark of a credible encyclopedia...free or otherwise.

The editor may in fact have an axe to grind. I don't know what the motivation was. I do think that chess.com is notable enough to have a wikipedia page, but I don't believe them not having one has anything to do with them being a commercial entity or to do with open-source.

It does sound like the original article didn't have much substantive content, and seemed mostly like marketing material to some of the commentators. I wonder why nobody actually remedied that though by talking about why chess.com actually is significant (e.g., chess mentor, the largest chess community, some famous events like Carlsen vs the world, death matches, being used for US chess league, etc.).

And after all, any claim to fame could be construed as "marketing material."

Not so. Stating that Magnus Carlsen is a former prodigy who is famous for becoming #1 at such an young age and achieving the highest rating ever is not something a sane person would argue is "marketing material" in the sense being discussed. 

But a page that just said "chess.com has 6.5 millions members and tons of great content, with a large community and a 30-day money-back guarantee" is obviously marketting material. I'm not arguing that's what the wikipedia page said, but merely that IF a page said only that, it would obviously be much closer to marketting material. I'm pretty sure you can tell the difference between these two examples, unless you're just in an argumentative mood.