Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CardRunners

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. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CardRunners

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

Speedy declined. Advertising of a non-notable online business which claims a tiny volume of sales for a few thousand customers. Per WP:ORG, existence is not notability and a few press releases in gambling trade publications and Web sites do not represent reliable independent coverage. Wtshymanski (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep — I would not class the article as "advertising" as it appears to lack classic elements of advertising like peacock terms and first-person statements ("we offer..."). The reliance on trade publications should not lead directly to deletion; most of the citations do have by-lines, which suggests a level of editorial responsibility beyond the level of pure blog postings. There remains a significant volume of content which needs to be directly links to citations, but this would appear to be among the several generally recognized poker-instruction sites; there is an article in the Toronto Sun which mentions this site among three, the other two being Bluefire Poker and Poker VT; the fact that the other two do not have articles should not sway the present deletion discussion (neither has been created and deleted). I've not included that article among citations for the present article as the topic is only mentioned incidentally. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It appears as this is a very popular website, and it is directly or indirectly referenced in many independent articles. See [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Not entirely sure about the reliability for these two [9] [10], but they do provide critical commentary. Lastly, there many hits coming from GBooks and some from GScholar, but the actual text is not available for most of them so I can't tell for sure if there's significant coverage. These two [11] [12] indicate significance of the subject, even if they are just passing mentions — Frankie (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Firsfron of Ronchester 03:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Poker/debatelog --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep this is not advertising, and there is just enough in the way of sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.