Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toronto poker

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. Mailer Diablo 10:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto poker

Spammer has been placed his web URL in place of official site links for Daniel Negreanu and Evelyn Ng, as well as spamming his URL to poker and online poker articles. This entry is ridiculous and should get a speedy delete. I removed the spam URLs already. 2005 06:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added Toronto poker network to this AfD. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 06:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as adspam; for a site with supposedly "over 45,000 members at between 5000-10,000 members online at all times" an Alexa of 3,525,333 is pretty bad. WP:WEB applies. Also extend deletion to Toronto poker network, currently on PROD, but should be added to this AfD if contested. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and as, irrespective of the advertising, non-notable per WP:CORP in any case. Joe 06:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Aside from the fact that this was an ad, there's no indication that poker in Toronto is particularly noteworthy. Rhobite 06:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable in its current form. KBi 07:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. For now. My vote is biased because I'm a poker player, but I don't think the user has an affiliation with the site. Poker, more specifically no limit texas hold'em, is a big thing right now and while there are a plethorea of poker websites, people are going to be coming here for info. It's an ad, yes, but there are worse things out there. I like finding a new poker site, as I told 1knowitall on their talk page. A chance, I say. TKE 07:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC) strikeout added by MSchmahl, per later comments by TKE[reply]
• Keep. I don't think I get a vote, since I added the site, however I am new to adding information to Wikipedia. I only added it because I searched for Toronto Poker and Toronto Poker Network and neither came up. I have no affiliation with the site, however I have over 300 people in my buddy list and that is just my friends, from Toronto. A large percentage of the players (75%+) are from Toronto or somewhere nearby, and I thought it would be very informative to people who search it just like I did. It was my mistake to add the url to other places, but I wasn't sure what I was doing until I read all the information on how to do this properly, and I take the blame for that. 1knowitall

• I don't know how to do the cross out, but I change to delete. I've been communicating with the user and advised about recreation, but ah well. TKE 09:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I do vote to delete the Toronto Poker Network, as that's just personal. TKE 07:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Didn't you just say that you voted to keep because you like finding new poker sites? 1knowitall 07:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but simultanious articles are not neccessary. Additionally, I got lost in the web of revisions. Can the expanded article not stand for the RfD? TKE 07:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the expanded article (which I just added some more to) is much more informative that the one for Toronto Poker which has basically completely been removed. I think Toronto Poker Network is now much more informative. It's up to all of you guys though. 1knowitall 07:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• RfD is Recommendation for Deletion, this here. I see a speedy or at least deletion for both articles coming up. If you'd like to rewrite the article under one name and make it WP:NPOV, you can use my sandbox to start from scratch, and I will help. TKE 07:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok lets work on this, hopefully I'll be an expert by the end of the night.

• I'm sorry, like I said I'm new. What does using the sandbox help me with exactly? I'm willing to try though, so let me know.

• The sandbox is where you can write and preview things without creating an article or stub. You can save or delete what you put in, play with links and html, that kind of thing. When the article is ready, that's when you submit it. Click on my link, go to edit, and do whatever you want to get the hang of Wiki. TKE 08:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 300 people playing one game in one town does not a notable topic make. I'm a Lover, Not a Fighter 07:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non notable -- Tawker 08:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non notable. Only 51 google hits! --Icarus 09:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non notable. At times like this I wish there were something inbetween speedy and AFD. — ciphergoth 10:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per 2005's nom. Essexmutant 11:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Just for future reference, what exactly constitutes notable? 1knowitall 08:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check here... Category:Wikipedia notability criteria. Essexmutant 11:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That's fine guys, go ahead and delete. Maybe I'll get some more useful criticism on my next article.

I'm not sure how many google hits makes something notable, etc etc. But hopefully I'll find out eventually. 1knowitall 09:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both Toronto poker and Toronto poker network should get a speedy delete for lack of notability, amazingly endless vandalism and dishonesty. This site is not an online poker cardroom, but rather just an affiliate doorway to a cardroom. There is no there there. Please delete and lock pages so the spam article can not be recreated. 2005 09:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with deletion of the article right now. I disagree with the idea of locking it for the future. The communication from the user on my Talk page shows good faith by the user that it's not blatant spam. I've been perusing the site, and it's as legit as any other gaming website. The user also admits that this is the first time doing anything with Wikipedia, and perhaps they didn't pick the right topic and their revisions weren't vandalism as much as confusion. I pointed out on their talk page about what is drawing the RfD; it's notability is second to the rapid changes to the article, which quickly became mush. I dunno, I've done my share of speedy, prods and RfDs (though I'm new in the game), and I think the the article could stand with collaboration. It's now in my sandbox for future work to get it up to par. If anyone can help or criticize let me know because this user has shown great civility for their first contribution going to delete, so I'd like to help them if possible. TKE 19:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page is blatant spam, and the user is blatant vandal and spammer. Saying he is editing in good faith is outrageous. He has created duplicate articles; blanked and removed afd tags; replaced links to official sites for personalities to his garbage site; created duplicate articles with the same spam garbage; and then most obviously, the site being promoted is not "legit as any other gaming site". That is absurd. There is no "gaming site". It's just an affiliate doorway to Island Poker. Enough time has been wasted on this blatant and dishonest vandal spamming. The user should be blocked and these idiotic articles never allowed to return. 2005 22:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 12:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per 2005, Kinu, Joe. — MSchmahl 23:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. I can see it now: Roanoke cribbage, Savannah backgammon, Tallahassee baccarat... I'm a Lover, Not a Fighter 07:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, what are the payouts on those? :) TKE 08:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Ardenn 01:58, 27 March 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.