Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of poker players

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 of the debate was delete. W.marsh 19:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of poker players

Page does not contain any information that is not already provided by categories such as Category:Poker players and Category:Gambling writers. This page has also been spammed on numerous occasions by vanity entries. Delete. Essexmutant 01:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The categories are more exhaustive and this list is wildly redundant between its sections. 2005 02:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Kymacpherson 13:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 17:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, should have been deleted at conclusion of original nom. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 18:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were just 2 comments, people generally want more discussion unless it's a slam dunk, which I didn't feel like this was really. --W.marsh 18:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable, but the nominator makes a strong case in saying that there's nothing in this article that wouldn't be more appropriate in the other choices. Still, I see where you're coming from. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 18:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fold. List pages that essentially duplicate categories should be deleted. Kickaha Ota 18:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant per categories. Kuzaar, relisting for more input is rarely bad and often results in an unambiguous result . Just zis Guy you know? 21:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand. I'm not criticizing the relister, I'm just just stating that the strength of the nominator's and others' above arguments make a very good case against the inclusion of this redundant article. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant as explained above -- MrDolomite 16:50, 21 June 2006 (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.