Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glicko rating system

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 keep. Canley (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glicko rating system

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not appear to have notability, at least in terms of having a standalone article. Searches on Google just lead to its official website and some blog and forum posts discussing it. This could be salvaged by expanding the small section on the chess rating system that already exists for it with whatever actual sources can be found. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to be enough coverage out there for this to meet WP:GNG. For instance: Over sixty hits for this on Google Scholar. Substantial discussion of its use in chess. Use of the system for making sport (tennis) predictions. Etc. Lowercaserho (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lowercaserho. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 03:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in addition to above, we have [1], [2], [3], lots of papers etc. Sufficient for WP:GNG. Hugsyrup (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.