Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PKR.com (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 10:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PKR.com

Delete - previous AFD closed keep for some unfathomable reason. There are no independent reliable sources that attest to the notability of this site. The previous AFD included several opinions regarding particular features of the site. This is not the standard of notability. Notability requires independent reliable sources that cover the subject in a substantive fashion. Press release-type mentions and single-line mentions in books do not meet our requirements. Otto4711 (talk) 07:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: who cares about it? Alexius08 (talk) 08:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The keep close of the previous AFD means that this article cannot be speedy deleted according to WP:CSD. JulesH (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The eGaming Review award ("Hotshot operator of the year"[1]) seems to suggest notability. I'm assuming that their print magazine contained more information about why they won the award than just this single line mention). Also, I'm not entirely sure that a single-line mention is always "trivial". If what that line says is clearly important, then I believe it wouldn't be. However, I don't know what the line in question is, as I don't have a copy of the book in question (see previous AFD) and google books has preview disabled. JulesH (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:N. Note that "won an award" is not a criterion that establishes notability. Notability is established by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Otto4711 (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. While I believe that this site deserves an article (it's the first online poker game in 3D), I'm not particularly happy with the current one. It sounds like a POVish advert. I'm hoping someone can save this with a rewrite (I'll offer a barnstar to whoever can make a DYK-worthy article out of this. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite as per above, the article is written in an unencyclopedic tone, but given its notibility as the first online poker game to feature 3D graphics, it does deserve to remain. KaySL (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No topic "deserves" an article. Wikipedia articles are not some prize that we dole out based on how worthy some topic supposedly is. Wikipedia articles are for topics that are notable, meaning that they have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That this site was the first to feature 3D graphics does not make it notable, unless the site received significant coverage in reliable sources. Let's see the significant coverage in reliable sources per WP:N. Otto4711 (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, let's. And I clearly didn't mean to imply that articles are like prizes to be shelled out as you said, merely that this one seems to satisfy notability requirements as far as I see. Yes, more sources are needed, but we shouldn't just trash an article instead of improving it. Sorry if I misinterpreted your tone, by the way. Cheers. KaySL (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaned up the article and added 6 references establishing notability per WP:WEB. Keep. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 15:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mentions do not equal notability. That PKR.com is mentioned in a news story about the online poker bubble supposedly bursting does not confer notability to PKR.com. The ranking of the site on Alexa does not make it notable. A couple of paragraphs on a site which has partnered with PKR.com to offer a bonus does not establish notability. Once again, there needs to be significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otto4711 (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Based on the re-write, notability seems to be established. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, which of the sources establish notability per WP:N? Otto4711 (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Notability is not an issue here: "January 4 2009 the poker site recorded 40 000 new registrations, bringing the total player base to 2.4 million, 1 and Google News Search. --J.Mundo (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes RecentPoker.com a reliable source? Where in WP:N do we find "a website has a lot of members" as establishing notability? Otto4711 (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Obviously notable in reliable source. 2005 (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, AGF here. I am sure the nom AFD'd the article in good faith. MuZemike 22:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please. Nom said previous keep was "unfathomable". Obviously when being so over the top there is a greater burden on a nominator. It took less than 15 seconds to find a reliable source. 2005 (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the improvements made to the article by Linguist. Good work! MuZemike 22:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the "references" that meet WP:N are...? Any of them? No? Oh. It's very simple to go "keep, look at all the sources" but apparently when challenged on the sources it's not so easy. Nice to see so much thought put into a decision. Otto4711 (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, clearly attacked on both sides of the debate; that's a first. Maybe I should think twice about commenting at an AFD next time. NOT! MuZemike 08:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways, enough reliable sources provide significant coverage to establish notability of this website, and that's only from looking that the current references. Anyways, 2005, you got your stupid keep !vote from me; what more do you want? MuZemike 08:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has at least three reliable sources (Times Online, Forbes and the award given) thus meeting WP:GNG. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:35, 23 January 2009 (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.