Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DoylesRoom

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 14:02Z

DoylesRoom

I don't think this website meets the criteria for notability and generally seems like just a subversive attempt at an advertisement Arch NME 12:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the absence of sources – Qxz 15:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - blatant advertising. "subversive" is too generous. Bobanny 18:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Obvious notability, stated both in article and by simple common sense. Articles should have sources of course. 2005 21:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that I said that though, I would support merging and redirecting the article with Doyle Brunson. The notability of the entity is in it being fronted by a celebrity, not in its uniqueness itself. It is what is called a "skin" into a network, and as such is not norteable as a cardroom. It is plainly notable though as an online gambling/poker site fronted by an American citizen living in the United States. 2005 22:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per an abundance of sources, four of which are now in the article. Otto4711 23:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements made by Otto. The subject seems notable per 20 Google News hits (and about 300,000 Ghits overall), and the sources added by Otto demonstrate notability. Thanks, Black Falcon 23:52, 3 March 2007 (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.