Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chessgames.com
It's a well established site going back to 2001, and is one of the most popular chess-related sites on the internet, despite its well publicized shortcomings. I think significant ''negative'' coverage in reliable sources counts towards establish notability too. (I'll  fix the link to Olimpiu Urcan's chesscafe article to point to the wayback machine.) How to determine what is a "reliable source" with regard to chess? The fact is most mainstream news sources rarely cover chess, and when they do they often get the details wrong (e.g. not knowing the difference between a "game" and a "match"). Taylor Kingston's chesscafe.com, Edward Winter's chesshistory.com and Mark Crowther's theweekinchess.com are among the more reliable sources for chess information. Lubomir Kavalek's column in the Huffington Post is good, Leonard Barden's column in the Guardian is good... but the chess community will always be somewhat incestuous and self-referential. I really think wikipedia needs to re-examine its  notability policy; just because a web site doesn't have an article written about it in the New York Times doesn't mean it's not notable. The current policy makes it too easy for people with an agenda to get articles about websites they don't like deleted; this has happened in the past with other chess-related websites
— User:MaxBrowne, 10:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:WEB (Wikipedia:Notability)