Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circled game


 * 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 all. Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 17:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Circled game

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

I am also nominating as a batch
 * Middling
 * Soft lines
 * Action bet
 * Zig-zag (betting)
 * Odds checker
 * Grand salami

All of which appear to be shallow spambait articles created with the sole purpose of providing an external link to the same websites. The creator appears to be linked to the website (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam) --BozMo talk 11:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, although alternatively I could see these being merged into a bigger article or a glossary of betting terms. Definitely not single-article material by any means. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. As long as these articles are on legitimate encyclopedia topics, there is no reason to delete. Spam links should be deleted anyway - problem solved. GregorB 13:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't think they are legitimate topics. They are a list of the different type of bets that online bookmakers use: they are at best non-notable product description aren't they? I accept I have no gaming knowledge but I cannot see how to expand them into any kind of decent article (except as a list of definitions a la Wiktionary)? --BozMo talk 15:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge. If they're legitimate, fine.  But perhaps a number could be merged into a list of betting/gambling terms?  That would take care of both the linking issue and the flood of articles at the same time.Young Skywalker 14:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC) — Young Skywalker (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete All - no merge. None of the information is cited by reliable sources and none of it is more then a slightly long dictdef. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete All Appears to be OR, as with Bounce back betting system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exarion (talk • contribs)
 * Delete No sources, poss. OR, neologism. Pete.Hurd 16:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all. I don't see a notable encyclopedic topic among them. Slideshow Bob 16:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all spambait --Hu12 15:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.