Deletion of Chess.com (2nd nomination)

Comment: the sources seem borderline for general notability but regardless being the most popular chess site means the absence of a Wikipedia article is a downer to Wikipedia itself. It can't be the prevailing view to on one hand, to stress coverage of Wikipedia per the FA's on the main page, and at the other hand have an absence of this article. There are a number of commentaries that, to my mind, rightly raise an eyebrow at Wikipedia's previous absence of this article, the forum at chess.com itself but also an alternative encyclopedia. I can just see a journalist reporting, "Wikipedia's says they have broad coverage but in practice they don't even have an article on chess.com the world most popular chess site with over 8 million members, a site that is more active then Wikipedia itself." So to that end I say even if |ignore rules has to be applied, Keep it. Regards
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: for {{u|Drmies}} and {{u|TheRedPenOfDoom}}: What are your thoughts on the clear  and #Inappropriate notification here and its effect on consensus? This was not "hey can I have your opinion." It was a lengthy, targeted, campaign. We're starting with the discussion tilted, influencing the rest of the discussion as {{u|SummerPhD}} makes quite clear. Would it be fair game now to go post on all of the self-identified inclusionists' pages? (rhetorical question). --&mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:ADMINSHOP||WP:CANVAS)

Comment: Insufficient (too weak, no in-depth coverage) |RSs. (A troll ''taught'' me something re  -- imagine that
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG)

Comment: the threshold at  states "has received '''significant''' coverage in reliable source'''s''' " (plural) - it does not say "has received '''trivial''' coverage in a lot of sources
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)