Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Poker League
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete. —Centrx→talk • 08:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Another non-notable poker league. No independent verifiable sourcing. Otto4711 03:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a perfectly good tag for asking that an article be sourced. Why not use that rather than mark everything for deletion? JROBBO 21:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I looked and there are no reliable third party sources that cover this topic as required by WP:V. If there were, I'd have added them myself. It makes no sense to add a source tag to an article when I already know that no sources exist. The "sources" linked below are not reliable third-party sources as required by the policy. The league has not been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other" and thus it is not notable. Otto4711 22:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you "know" that there are no sources at all? Have you thought to look outside of online sources? There are such things as books or magazines, you know. JROBBO 09:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, are there? Thank you, I appreciate your letting me know of these "books" and "magazines" you speak of. Meanwhile, do you have a source, online or otherwise, that discusses this topic in a non-trivial fashion? Something other than a bar or a club that's hosting a tournament and announcing it in its calendar sectionperhaps? Anything at all? Otto4711 05:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The club sources I mentioned below are backups, just in case you think the Australian Poker League isn't as active in the community as it claims to be. The main sources are the poker news websites, as they should be. In the same way as computer games are considered notable if they're mentioned on several professional, and independent, computer game news sources, poker subjects should be considered notable if they're mentioned on several professional, and independent, poker news sources. Quack 688 09:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply being "mentioned" is not sufficient to establish notability. To be notable the article's topic must be "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other." Otto4711 13:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The club sources I mentioned below are backups, just in case you think the Australian Poker League isn't as active in the community as it claims to be. The main sources are the poker news websites, as they should be. In the same way as computer games are considered notable if they're mentioned on several professional, and independent, computer game news sources, poker subjects should be considered notable if they're mentioned on several professional, and independent, poker news sources. Quack 688 09:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, are there? Thank you, I appreciate your letting me know of these "books" and "magazines" you speak of. Meanwhile, do you have a source, online or otherwise, that discusses this topic in a non-trivial fashion? Something other than a bar or a club that's hosting a tournament and announcing it in its calendar sectionperhaps? Anything at all? Otto4711 05:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you "know" that there are no sources at all? Have you thought to look outside of online sources? There are such things as books or magazines, you know. JROBBO 09:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I looked and there are no reliable third party sources that cover this topic as required by WP:V. If there were, I'd have added them myself. It makes no sense to add a source tag to an article when I already know that no sources exist. The "sources" linked below are not reliable third-party sources as required by the policy. The league has not been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other" and thus it is not notable. Otto4711 22:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a perfectly good tag for asking that an article be sourced. Why not use that rather than mark everything for deletion? JROBBO 21:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Like the other recent poker-related AfD nominations, this has been mentioned across a wide number of poker-related sources. [1]
Looking up a few club websites confirms that they really are as active in the pub and club scene as they say they are: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
If it really has over 145,000 registered players in a country with a population of 20 million, it's definitely notable. I'd like to see a source for that membership number, though. (Then again, are we allowed to mention any organization's number of members? If we're not allowed to use the organization's own membership count, what figure can we use? Any news source which discusses an organization is unlikely to independently verify if that organization really has 145,000 members, for example.) Quack 688 09:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- None of your sources meet WP:V or WP:RS. Otto4711 13:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - there's enough on the article already to convince me that it's notable. It's more well-written than most articles on Wikipedia, and has a lot of potential. Definitely keep it. JROBBO 21:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sources are not reliable. No indication of notability aside from promotional sites. WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid argument for keeping. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless reliable sources are forthcoming. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve. There looks to be enough info displayed on a Lexis-Nexis search to support an article. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\talk 07:33, 29 December 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.