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

Has nothing to do with being "in an argumentative mood."  It wouldn't be me doing the arguing, but somebody else. 

Well, technically, the somebody else would be doing the construing, no, not the arguing? I think you're doing the arguing (that their construal is valid) 

I think you are misconstruing Andy's transitive arguing of the implications of construation.

Okay, with all this talk of construing, I gotta go (be back in a few minutes)...

That has been the popular main line against him toninght or morning from a point of view.

Very logical!

I didn't mean to cause any harm with my post, so apologies to anyone it may have offended.

I just know how hard the guys and girls have worked to provide everyone... (from chess pros like the titled players who provide kick ass content and share their wisdom -- to the patzers like me who come here to learn - and everyone in between) a quality place to "get our chess on."

The sphere of influence Chess.com wields on the online chess world is vast and positive.

To see the site get stiffed like "the elephant in the room" by the online reference encyclopedia many of the masses go to for their source of information about the subjects they're interested in, disappoints me.

It's like an entry on the solar system mentioning all the planets but one.

Citing Juliet as a character but failing to list Romeo.

Listing the Vice President but leaving only a blank space where honoring the Commander in Chief belongs.

Mentioning Twitter for social media but forgetting to include Facebook because they provide a platform to advertisers.

So seriously, someone let some trivial posting in a forum cloud their judgement from including Chess.com simply because of the fact the article mentioned its 6 million plus satisfied members are protected by a money back guarantee?

The fact the site offers a guarantee is simply stating a pertinent fact. It assures the visitor they are visiting a safe site that doesn't ask them to take any risk because they are protected. That's important to know if you want to learn about Chess (.com) at a professional website, isn't it?

I tried posting a Lenny Bongcloud article once, it came down before I did...

@learningthemoves, you misunderstand.  I thought I was clear in my message that mentioned 6 million plus members and a money-back guarantee: I was just giving two purely hypothetical examples as a counterargument to AndyClifton's assertion that 'any claim to fame could be construed as "marketing material."' I don't know (and don't care) what was in the original wikipedia page.

If you highlight the URL, then click the link icon (5th from right) while the whole URL is highlighted, and then paste the URL into the first input in the window that opens, the whole URL should be linked after you click 'insert' to close the window and save the post.

Like so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28web%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28web%29

Okay, that doesn't work. It appears to be a chess.com bug. Even when I percent-encoded the parentheses as %28 and %29, it still doesn't work.

Finally works but only if the text of the link doesn't contain the parens. Definitely a chess.com bug, since the parens in the @href of the link are supposed to be percent encoded, the parens inside the text of the link definitely don't need to be.

No advertising, that simple.

Yeah, it can't possibly be any valid excuse for exclusion ("because Chess.com is a commercial site")...because the most commercial chess site out there (strictly a paid server) has a very detailed article on there about their site with no problems as well as other chess sites.

So the attempt to argue having anything to do with being a commercial site or as if someone is "advertising" the site just by having the Chess.com article justifiably restored to its proper inclusion on Wikipedia (as well they should) simply holds no water.

There's an old proverb that bears application to this easily remedied miscarriage of justice. "Withhold not good to whom it is due when it is in the power of your hand to do so."

The Wikipedia users and public at large deserve the opportunity to see Chess.com mentioned as a resource for Chess. It would be a huge disservice to the users who trust Wikipedia for comprehensive info if the editor somehow failed to make sure Chess.com is included in the list of online Chess destinations.

I have a feeling the right person will know the right thing to do and do it.

I skimmed/read it right here on chess.com.  Wish I'd read more carefully now.  Other posters have mentioned a deleted thread so apparently it was in that, and how "senior" the editor was has had doubt cast on it also. Like Learningthemoves, I believe the patent absurdity of the situation will soon be resolved.

From The_Carrie_Diaries to Phils7ha , strange names. 

So Phils7ha, you are correct.  It is not "patently absurd" since you are obviously an intelligent being who disagrees with my assertion.  Not sure how you would justify a Wiki article that lists a dozen online chess servers without mentioning chess.com, but that's hardly germane to our discussion, is it?  I stand (well, sit actually) corrected....

Actually I did and was singularly unimpressed....Goodbye.

Look at the Yahoo! chess article. How 'quality' is that? Why hasn't it been deleted?

Wikipedia is terribly biased (e.g. Yelena Dembo)

Use Metapedia instead.

Are reviews like those:

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/chess.com

http://www.theappleclan.com/game-review-chess-com/

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.chess&hl=en

http://www.bukisa.com/articles/333090_website-review-chesscom

not relevant?

I thought that Wikipedia is trying to stay neutral. Chess.com is a site. The information should not get the reader the feeling that he is reading marketing material, but as long as the facts are correct, then should Chess.com be a page.

To understand the neutrality of Wikipedia did I take a look at the page of Microsoft, because I wanted to see what was said about Windows OS and Internet Explorer. Both systems have their good sides and serious flaws. Windows OS is a unstable and insecure yet userfriendly system. Userfriendliness and insecurity go together, that is imo unavoidable. I did not see something written about that (and there are thousands web pages complaining about the lack of security of Windows OS). Nor did I see any text about all the frustration web developers have because of the bugs and not applying the standards on the internet for so many years.

Please read the opening sentences of this article. Those sentences should have been on the page of Microsoft too:

http://net.tutsplus.com/tutorials/html-css-techniques/9-most-common-ie-bugs-and-how-to-fix-them/

By the way, don't get me wrong: without Windows OS and Microsoft Office would I never had a job. Microsoft has given the world very much. I have no axe to grind towards Microsoft or whatever.

Well, I have read the former article of chess.com and I think it is correct that that information is not in line with the guidelines of Wikipedia. The information about the forms of membership is too detailed and the most natural facts about chessgames are left out.

But there is so much more to say about this chess site besides the types of membership. For instance the numbers of players that have been members. The number of games played each year. That are numbers that are impressive and neutral in its content. The number of fora, the number of invinted opinings.

The information from Alexa is external and reliable as well. Just like the reviews of the apps. You could use it in a new page on Wikipedia.

I just read that the ICC is the largest pay for play chess server in the world. Is that correct? It has 30.000 subscribing members.

Chess.com doesn't really need an article written about it.  It's pretty self explanatory (unlike a particular person, movie or book).

If anyone still wants to write a new wikipedia article about chess.com, you can.  Just make sure you sign in or they'll record your IP address as the source for your article.