User talk:PlayChessBetter

November 2023[edit]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Daily Chess Championship (November 16)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Cabrils was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of websites). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Daily Chess Championship and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Cabrils (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cabrils,

Happy New Year. While my draft was rejected please look at 2024 Chess.com Daily Chess Championship edition which started yesterday (https://www.chess.com/tournament/2024-chess-com-daily-chess-championship). This year, a new record was broken with 63.352 players. It is the largest chess tournament ever both online and over-the-board (https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/largest-board-game-tournament). Please note that chess.com is fully reliable tournament organizer (all TOP chess players play there) with 150 million users (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess.com).

It seems to me that the world's largest tournament, in a game with such traditions as chess, should have its place on Wikipedia. Considering that in the Guinness Book there is a category called 'The largest online chess tournament', it is only a matter of time before the organizers report this record.

Regarding references, of course the vast majority must come from chess.com, because in previous years both Chess24 and Play Magnus was purchased by Chess.com. So you can say that we now have a bit of a monopoly on online chess:).

Please reconsider your decision to decline and possibly let me know how I can publish this regular chess event on Wikipedia. Please keep in mind that I have plans to add more great chess events. However, it is difficult to start if this type of tournament is rejected.

Thank you and best regards. PlayChessBetter (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PlayChessBetter! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Cabrils (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Daily chess (November 20)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WikiOriginal-9 was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Daily chess and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 07:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Daily chess (November 26)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Lizthegrey were:

Neologisms are not considered suitable for Wikipedia unless they receive substantial use and press coverage; this requires strong evidence in independent, reliable, published sources. Links to sites specifically intended to promote the neologism itself do not establish its notability.

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Daily chess. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please develop this content under Correspondence chess first; if appropriately sourced, it can be forked to its own article but you have not provided independent, secondary sourcing covering the phenomenon of the new format.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Daily chess and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

lizthegrey (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Daily Chess Championship (December 27)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by RoboCric was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of websites). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Daily Chess Championship and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robo^Cric Let's chat 17:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]