Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Poker League


 * 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

United States Poker League

 * — (View AfD)

Non-notable poker tournament. No reliable sources I could find, just than blog-level stuff. No verification of any of the info. Also it's not scheduled to take place until April so this is crystal balling. Otto4711 03:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - Lead-in league for the US PokerBowl, a $1m USD national tournament.   Torinir ( Ding my phone   My support calls   E-Support Options  ) 03:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Your cites are a gambling website, a directory and the home page for the tournament. None of which satisfy WP:V or WP:RS. Otto4711 04:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * From WP:V: "Material from self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material..." with a number of criteria that those meet. Keep. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The above quotation is selective: the material must be relevant to the notability that is established using third-party independent sources. "If an article topic has no third-party, independent sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Robert A.West (Talk) 00:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not selective. As I said, it meets the criteria below.  Technically speaking, the first two links are third-party and independent. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We must be looking at different articles. This one has one link: the official website of the league.  It has no other sources.  Robert A.West (Talk) 00:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Then, by all means, add the first one from above. I did look at the wrong page on the second link, however. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Moderate Keep - This league does exist, but they seem rather grassroots and may be using Wikipedia as a popularity slinghsot. I say leave it alone unless they become destructive.  I'll add it to my watchlist to see how bad things get. - NickSentowski 16:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - Zero hits for news: fails WP:CORP. I agree with NickSentowski that this is self-promotion using Wikipedia, but disagree on action: self-promotion is a strong reason for deletion.  Wikipedia is not and must not be a vehicle for creating notability.  Robert A.West (Talk) 22:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete "may be using Wikipedia as a popularity slingshot" should disqualify them then and there. Lack of reliable sources also does the trick. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  Ford MF 11:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete... It hasn't happened yet, there are few or no hits about it, and when I typed it in on google, a large number of links to it are merely mirrors of this article. We don't let groups, bands, and companies use wikipedia as an advertising mule, so I am perplexed as to why there are so many keep votes here that believe such a strategy isn't a bad for the encyclopedia. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. In a year or so this may be the next big thing in poker. Wikipedia's not a crystal ball, and as of right now it's not notable though. -- Wizardman 06:08, 1 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.