Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OlimpBase

: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. MBisanz ^talk 00:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

=[[OlimpBase]]=

:{{la|OlimpBase}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/OlimpBase Stats])

:({{Find sources|OlimpBase}})

Article appears to fail WP:WEB. I notice a source or two about their historical chess player ratings, but they do not seem to be enough to establish notability. I also see the "Golden Web Award" thing but I can't seem to find any sources about that. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete. No reliable references, no claim to notability I can see. Note to closing admin: I nominated the Polish Wikipedia article for deletion at :pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2012:11:05:OlimpBase; if my vote is the only one I suggest we wait (relist this) and see the outcome of the deletion there, in case something else becomes apparent. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Only one citation in the article, and it's self-published, thus not reliable. No demonstration that the subject is notable.--xanchester (t) 10:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete per WP:GNG. I did actually find one article, but it only had trivial coverage. "Masters, old and young" in the April 30, 2004 late edition of the Newcastle Herald. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

: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.