Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane's Chess Information Database

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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). Regarding the keep !vote in the discussion, WP:BASIC pertains to people, not software. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shane's Chess Information Database

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

The program looks pretty cool, but I can't any significant coverage of it. None of the sources here do anything to make the subject meet WP:GNG. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 20:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Shane's chess information database" doesn't get many google hits, but "SCID" + "chess" does. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I hope to have time to look for sources in the next couple days, but for now I'll just leave a comment to say I'd be pretty surprised if we couldn't find significant coverage of Scid (though it's possible my perspective is skewed because I've spent a good amount of time in those places where it's been well-known since the late-90s or early-00s) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Increasingly, SCID is "the other ChessBase". --causa sui (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I already added external references and polished a little bit the article. Please add more content and proof-read what I have done so far.Nicoguaro (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the sources have been improved, so that I think WP:BASIC is just passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2016 (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.