User talk:Kidtire/WRGPT

The major criticism of this article in the AfD is that it is unsourced and unverifiable. Let's fix this. What press coverage has WRGPT had? — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 01:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the slow response. I am new to writing for Wikipedia and am learning the process. I also wanted to read a little about the politics behind Wikipedia so I would know what flames were coming my way. The WRGPT has been covered only by online sources and various poker related magazines. It hasn't been covered by the New York Times, USA Today or the LA Times. I guess if the criteria for inclusion of an article is to repeat what has already been written then this article does not meet this criteria. If the purpose of an online encyclopedia is to provide a resource for finding information that may not be covered elsewhere then this article is exactly what you want. I know that this argument is at the very core of Wikipedia philosophy and that the camps and battle lines were drawn years ago. It seems silly for me to add to that fire at this time. I would rather the article stay as many have asked me to write an article for Wikipedia about WRGPT so I did. It won't ruin my life, day or hour if it is deleted. --Kidtire 17:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you list a few poker magazines that have covered it? Don't worry too much about Wikipedia policies or the AfD discussion: if the article can be properly sourced and cited, then it will not be deleted (and even if deleted it can be put up for review). As I have said in that discussion, I am willing to fight to have this article kept in WP, although in a somewhat more edited and well-sourced fashion. As regards whether WP should convey information that is not available anywhere else, I am afraid that is contrary to one of the key policies here called no original research. If something isn't verifiable from reliable sources, it will be removed from WP. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 01:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]