Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WRGPT


 * 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; content userfied to User:Kaustuv/WRGPT. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have in turn moved it to User:Kidtire/WRGPT, as he was the original and sole author of that page. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 19:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

WRGPT
WP:SPAM for the "World Rec.Gambling Poker Tournament". A non-notable WP:WEB-site. Google hits (WRGPT): 658. No Alexa traffic rank for: quizkids.com. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  18:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * WRGPT - WRGPT is not a website. It is a free, no fee, no prizes, no sponsors email-based poker tournament that has been in operation for 15 years completely by volunteers for the enjoyment of 1100+ players. WRGPT is a small part of the history of the net and the history of poker.  It was started out of conversations on the newsgroup rec.gambling back in 1991. Please do not delete this entry. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.182.2.222 (talk    • contribs) 2006-07-13 17:06:57  (UTC)  (this was me) --Kidtire 22:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: drew a border around multi-line comment. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 21:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The border gives undue prominence to one IP's comment. I lumped everything together as per convention for comments. Kimchi.sg 23:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete totally unsourced, no references to reliable, independent writeups of this tournament. There could be larger email poker tournaments out there. Or there may not be. How'd anybody know? We can't just take their word for it. Certainly not for an encyclopedia article. Kimchi.sg 23:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep (please) - I am the definitive source for the tournament since 1999 and have discussed the history with those who preceeded me. I have been asked by many users why there wasn't a Wikipedia article on WRGPT so I decided to write one.  Certainly there are many useless articles that should be deleted but this one should not be in that category.  There are several articles in Wikipedia, for example, on relatively unknown poker personalities.  This article is useful to many and harms none.   --Kidtire 00:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: User's only contributions are to the article and this AFD. Stifle (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is correct. I am wanting to help with this wonderful resource and have decided to start by contributing on a subject upon which I am an expert.  Thank you for the editting suggestions and contribution guidelines.  I am learning and trying to be useful. --Kidtire 17:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, but replace with verifiable info from reliable sources. On doing a little research of my own, it appears that notable poker players such as Chris Ferguson and Greg Raymer have taken part in this tournament. The FAQ for  has some info on it.  A volunteer run internet-based poker tournament that mostly antedates the web is the kind of quirky stuff that a mainstream encyclopedia would miss and Wikipedia is so great at covering, and it is certainly notable for being perhaps the only email-based poker tournament.  In any case, I think the label "SPAM" is unnecessarily harsh for a site that's volunteer run on donations and doesn't blast the viewer with thousands of ads. Full disclosure: I myself don't know anything about poker, but, being from the generation that grew up during the golden years of USENET, I admit to being rather biased in favour of organisations that had their start in newsgroups. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 01:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Kimchi. -- e ivindt@c 04:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, with the suggestions made by Kaustuv Chaudhuri. 206.230.60.144 20:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * -- Possible sock puppet vote (little to no contributions outside this AfD --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  05:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, editing as per Kaustuv Chaudhuri's suggestions.Claudia 21:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: User has a very limited contribution history. Stifle (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, editing as per Kaustuv Chaudhuri's suggestions. I've played this tournament for years and know of none larger.PeP 23:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * -- Possible sock puppet vote (little to no contributions outside this AfD --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  05:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. WRPTGT is verifiable via the rec.gambling and rec.gambling.poker newgroups.  Perhaps links or refs to some of the original postings about it might be in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.23.204 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Unregistered users' recommendations are generally not counted in AFD discussions. Stifle (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. WRGPT is part of poker history.  It can easily be verified by current WSOP players (e.g. Andy Bloch, 2nd place winner of the $50K HORSE tournament 2006).  WRGPT predates on-line poker.  Kaustuv Chaudhuri editing suggestions are a good start for improving this article.  Not only should this article be kept, but new articles on IRC-poker and BARGE should be added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Erb2000 (talk • contribs).
 * Comment: User's third edit. Stifle (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete due to sock flood. Stifle (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I mean absolutely no offense, but that's without a doubt the worst voting rationale I've ever seen. So sockpuppets are voting for it- how does that change the merits of an article? I'm putting down "keep," and I'm not a puppet. If Doyle Brunson somehow made it to AfD, and a bunch of socks said to keep it, would you want to delete that, too? If you think the article does not assert notability, then that's one thing, but your contribution to the discussion is about as useful as a sock's. -- Kicking222 12:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment it's not expounded upon well, but flood of sockpuppets is a usual signature of an article that needs to be deleted, the same way The article about this band is written in the first person is a usual signature that the article needs to be deleted. In this case, the flood of sockpuppets is a result of the article's total failure of WP:V, WP:OR, WP:SPAM et al. WilyD 13:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I, on the other hand, think sockpuppetry is one of the more valid reasons to delete an article. It is considerably more objective than the notability guidelines that can be interpreted in any number of tortuous ways. I have voted keep above, and will stick to it because my rationale remains unchanged, but there have been many instances in the past where I have changed by vote to delete based on the disgusting amount of puppetry in an AfD. The article currently doesn't stand on its own merits, and my attempts to spur constructive discussion on Talk:WRGPT and User_talk:Kidtire (the author of this article) have been met with stony silence. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 20:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is that Doyle Brunson wouldn't have a bunch of socks voting in that AFD, unless you're counting on all the members coming over from the Doyle Brunson RPG Forum, which, by the way, would be the most awesome forum ever. Wickethewok 20:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Will (message me!) 08:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom.    Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  11:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete OR and no proven significance. Does not look any more notable than a Shedmoot. (Google for it). Just zis Guy you know? 12:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I really like Kaustuv's suggestions. I think, due to the history of the WRGPT and the people who have participated in it, that it has enough significance to merit an article. Disclosure: I love poker with a passion, but I have never heard of this tournament, so I don't think my reasoning is particularly biased. -- Kicking222 12:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete with fire. Fails WP:SPAM, WP:V, WP:VAIN with a passion. WilyD 13:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The WRGPT article is not SPAM so does not fail that criteria. Although the Verifiability may be considered a little weak as it is from other Internet sources; mostly USENET articles, discussions and announcments.  Some of these sources have been added to the article.  As for Vanity, there is some reason to believe this might fail as the article mentions the author only because the author was asked many times why there wasn't an article about WRGPT in Wikipedia and the author plays a significant role in the operation of WRGPT.  Therefore it does not fail all the mentioned criteria "with a passion" as mentioned in this comment. -Kidtire 17:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:OR -- Whpq 14:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. —   pd_THOR  undefined | 14:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:SPAM, WP:V, and WP:VAIN. --—Core des at talk. o.o;; 15:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as spam, original research. If every poker tournament/game that has had a famous person in it has an article, thats a bit much.  I must its always interesting watching these AFDs play out with loads of new users coming in and making grandiose claims.  I don't think anything thats been flooded with socks/meats has been kept ever...  Wickethewok 15:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn. --Pboyd04 23:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Wikthewok and WilyD. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Request to closing admin: if the consensus is to delete, than can you move it to a user sub-page? I think this article can be improved to meet WP:V and WP:NOR, but I don't currently possess the information to make it so and am reluctant to edit a page that might soon be deleted anyhow. Thanks. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 02:06, 25 July 2006 (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.