Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PokerPlayer magazine


 * 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. No policy-based reasons to keep; article still has zero third party sources. Sandstein (talk) 09:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

PokerPlayer magazine

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to PokerPlayer magazine. This is one Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia, see also →Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam -- Hu12 06:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

AFD announced at wikiproject poker
 * Delete non-notable magazine.Balloonman 07:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment some folks over at WikiProject Poker have started to do a bit of research on this - see the project talk page. ♣ ♦  SmartGuy  ♥  ♠ 07:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Dennis Publishing. The (spam happy) publisher does have an article.  The real content of this article is a single sentence, so I'd support just boldly redirecting the article instead of letting the afd run.  2005 08:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems to be the leading UK poker magazine and comes from a major UK publisher. I buy a copy regularly as it's better than most of its rivals IMO. Colonel Warden 21:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If its a leading UK poker magazine, and not jut a vanity article, citations should be easily found and added. Simply existing as a magazine doesn't imply notability.--Hu12 23:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So go find them then. Per WP:NOEFFORT, AFD is not cleanup. I've got a copy of issue 29 here which I bought in Borders the other day - 74 pages, full colour, highly professional editorial content, lots of full page ads from billion-dollar companies like PartyPoker.  It obviously merits an entry.  Colonel Warden 11:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a high profile magazine available at most newsagents in the UK. Here's an independent review. Phil Bridger 16:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as insufficiently notable. The fact that this magazine exists is not relevant. The issue is whether it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. It has not. -- Satori Son 17:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The barometer of notability is whether those independent of the subject itself have actually considered this magazine notable enough to have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it, not that it simply exists.--Hu12 18:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ballot stuffing Your reasons to delete should go in the proposal.  Adding an apparently separate opinion is improper.  Colonel Warden 22:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The review link provided above is adequately independent and non-trivial. Colonel Warden 20:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My comment comes directly from the reason proposed above, WP:NOTABILITY. see Notes, #4--Hu12 22:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Colonel Warden's admonition about ballot-stuffing is correct. It looks like a separate opinion because of where you placed it. No one was disputing that the opinion was included above. The problem is that you included it twice in two different places. (In other words, your "vote" is part of the nomination above. A second "vote" in this section is unnecessary, confusing, and redundant.) Rray 00:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge into publisher's main article. We can always re-create an independent article in the future, if need be. ♣  ♦  SmartGuy  ♥  ♠ 17:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The magazine is much more notable than the publisher. If anything the publisher should be deleted and the magazine kept. Phil Bridger 20:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That is certainly not true. The publisher publishes all sorts of magazines, including Maxim, which alone is 100 times more notable than PokerPlayer magazine. 2005 00:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge per Smartguy and 2005. Rray 23:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is notable enough. Kingturtle 18:17, 15 November 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.