Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pagat.com


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 06:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Pagat.com

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability not established or sourced per WP:WEB. RJASE1 Talk  23:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:A Alf Photoman  00:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It plainly meets WP:A, with at least 200 pages of the site independently attributed by whatever the leading sites for every different game are, so your comment doesn't make any sense. This website is actually a prototype for what we want in terms of WP:A. Some additional material is the primary source for obscure game rules, but for games that have multiple authoritative websites devoted to them, this site is almost always cited as a reliable reference. 2005 05:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Bencherlite 00:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing delete vote in light of comments below and addition of a reference to the article - although if the article had been written with an eye to WP:WEB, particularly "The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section", this debate would have been unnecessary. Keep and expand.  Bencherlite 17:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete; violates WP:WEB --Mhking 03:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Plainly meets WP:WEB. The website is the preeminent card games website on the Internet, with literally thousands of non-trivial online references from the International Playing Card Society on down. Please do some research before making afd's... added... and also the random removal of links added by many different editors that clearly meet WP:EL calls this whole afd into question.  Please act responsibly. 2005 05:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This is clearly the most authoritative website about card games on the Internet, and it's well-known as such. Rray 07:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. 56.000 google hits. The site is strongly recommended in David Parlett's book "Teach Yourself Card Games", so we have at least one very authoritative mention in the dead forest media.Punainen Nörtti 11:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Agree with other keep opinions in spades.  Dddstone 16:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  Delete . There seem to be some clear feelings about this article, but where is the proof that this site is notable?  There are no secondary sources mentioning that it is notable or an important Web site.  That is required.  Being mentioned in a book is not a proof of notability, especially if the mention is, "Here's where you can go to play games online."  You need secondary sources stating that this Web site is important. --Mus Musculus 14:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The Parlett's mention is a full-page praise of the site, mentioning that it is the single best source for rules of card games. Thus, Parlett's book a secondary source stating that it is an important web site. (Do you want to have quotes?)Punainen Nörtti 19:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well ideally, I want a source that I can verify. But I'm prepared to take your word for it and change my vote to Keep. --Mus Musculus 20:03, 15 March 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.