Talk:Doyles Room

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-03-03. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Gambling: Poker Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gambling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gambling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GamblingWikipedia:WikiProject GamblingTemplate:WikiProject GamblingGambling articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Poker (assessed as Low-importance).

An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

WikiProject Gambling To-do:

Current collaborations:

Improve an article to FA

Improve an article to A

Help with the Gambling articles needing attention.
Tag the talk pages of Gambling-related articles with the {{WikiProject Gambling}} banner.
The link to the Missouri gambling site is now out of date and needs to be updated.
Japan section reads as though it was written by the gambling industry - quotes of 160% returns are 'citation needed'.

Changes to page

1) Removes links to commercial pages.

2) Adds tags for advertising and for needing independent sources.

3) Giving authors warning that this article seems to represent a strong conflict of interest WP:CONFLICT. Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a site for self-advertising.

adding a link to the commercial site that is the subject of the article is not advertising. It is appropriate in this case. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are supposed to link to official sites. It does need secondary sources, bt a dozen editors have edited the page so COI isn't an issue here, especially since the article doesn't say anything advertise-y at this point. 2005 (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clue me in a little. I thought links to sites selling anything were frowned upon?

Apart from that, what would be the justification for the second link (it doesn't seen to need explicit citation)? DoylesRoom.com: Pros and Celebs You Can Play

24.130.9.210 (talk) 00:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about two different things. First, external links to an official site are specifically called for in the external links guideline, WP:EL. Second, the other link is a citation, not what is called an external link. Citations verify information. In this case, examples of players sponsored by the cardroom. In any case, companies that sell something like Coca-Cola or Amazon do also get external links pointed at them. The external links guideline only prohibits sites that do nothing but sell soemthing, and are not official sites. 2005 (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. I guess I could look for other sources on the subject, but since I'm not interested in wading through pop-ups and potential malware, I'll let someone who knows the subject well do that.

24.130.9.210 (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doyles Room. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070813085337/http://doylesroom.com:80/bio/ to http://www.doylesroom.com/bio/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]