Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subscription poker


 * 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   redirect to Glossary of poker terms. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Subscription poker

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Horribly unreferenced. All I could find in Google News were press releases, which are not reliable sources. I do not know of any independent reliable source that discusses subscription-based poker in general. Thus, this article has little chance of being referenced. (However, due to Black Friday, it might be possible that these sites get good third-party coverage, in which case this article can be recreated). RJaguar3 &#124; u  &#124;  t  20:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This AFD was announced on the WP:Poker page.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 14:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Take first sentence and redirect it to a line on the Glossary of poker terms. 2005 (talk) 07:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent suggestion 2005. I've been visiting this page ever since it was announced at WP:Poker, but couldn't decide how to !vote.  The article MAY be notable and worth having an article on, but in the current state it is not worth keeping.  As a redirect, it keeps the important info and leaves the door open should somebody want to flesh it out with relevant information that isn't a directory of sites offering the services.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 14:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To be fair, there was also substantial content in the lead that I deleted before I made the realization that this article could not be sourced. Before my edits, there were four unsourced paragraphs of dubious assertions of the sites' legality (relying heavily on the sites' assertions, which are primary sources) bordering on original research.  RJaguar3 &#124;  u  &#124;  t  18:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What you deleted were just assertions, so there isn't anything valuable there. Likewise, the companies listed may or may not be notable, but this is not how we handle online poker sites.  They have to be notable on their own to merit an article, and we don't list them all in the online poker article.  All subscription poker is is a way to play online poker, which means it is basically just a definition, plus a part of the sentence in the online poker article, saying there are different ways the sites make money.  Anyway, there is really nothing that should be or needs to be here any way you slice it.  Other articles have spots to define this concept, or expand upon it if need be. 2005 (talk) 02:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Redirect per solution proposed by  2005. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect as 2005 proposed. In its current state the article is just an advertisment for a couple of play money poker websites. There is some sourcable material that could be inserted in the article but I don't think that we could currently expand it beyond a single paragraph which might as well be in the glossary. Rymatz (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2011 (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.