Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pool300


 * 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Pool300

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Wikipedia is not for things you made up one day, but for things that are the subject of coverage in reliable, third-party sources. I see no evidence of the latter. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - No reliable sources to suggest that this is notable. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - no coverage anywhere AFAICT to suggest that WP:GNG can be met. SmartSE (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even if this were notable—and I see no indication that it is—Wikipedia is not a game guide. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 02:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, per WP:N and WP:NFT and WP:COI. It's completely routine to summarize the rules of games in game articles, so WP:GAMEGUIDE isn't really applicable. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 04:54, 20 February 2012 (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.