350:- Yes, let's. And I clearly didn't mean to imply that articles are like prizes to be shelled out as you said, merely that this one seems to satisfy notability requirements as far as I see. Yes, more sources are needed, but we shouldn't just trash an article instead of improving it. Sorry if I misinterpreted your tone, by the way. Cheers.
325:, meaning that they have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That this site was the first to feature 3D graphics does not make it notable, unless the site received significant coverage in reliable sources. Let's see the significant coverage in reliable sources per
420:
Passing mentions do not equal notability. That PKR.com is mentioned in a news story about the online poker bubble supposedly bursting does not confer notability to PKR.com. The ranking of the site on Alexa does not make it notable. A couple of paragraphs on a site which has partnered with PKR.com to
166:
of this site. The previous AFD included several opinions regarding particular features of the site. This is not the standard of notability. Notability requires independent reliable sources that cover the subject in a substantive fashion. Press release-type mentions and single-line mentions in books
238:"trivial". If what that line says is clearly important, then I believe it wouldn't be. However, I don't know what the line in question is, as I don't have a copy of the book in question (see previous AFD) and google books has preview disabled.
286:
poker game in 3D), I'm not particularly happy with the current one. It sounds like a POVish advert. I'm hoping someone can save this with a rewrite (I'll offer a barnstar to whoever can make a DYK-worthy article out of this. -
234:) seems to suggest notability. I'm assuming that their print magazine contained more information about why they won the award than just this single line mention). Also, I'm not entirely sure that a single-line mention is
609:
are...? Any of them? No? Oh. It's very simple to go "keep, look at all the sources" but apparently when challenged on the sources it's not so easy. Nice to see so much thought put into a decision.
84:
321:
No topic "deserves" an article. Knowledge (XXG) articles are not some prize that we dole out based on how worthy some topic supposedly is. Knowledge (XXG) articles are for topics that are
571:
Please. Nom said previous keep was "unfathomable". Obviously when being so over the top there is a greater burden on a nominator. It took less than 15 seconds to find a reliable source.
494:
260:. Note that "won an award" is not a criterion that establishes notability. Notability is established by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
144:
303:
as per above, the article is written in an unencyclopedic tone, but given its notibility as the first online poker game to feature 3D graphics, it does deserve to remain.
640:
Anyways, enough reliable sources provide significant coverage to establish notability of this website, and that's only from looking that the current references. Anyways,
375:
79:
489:--Notability is not an issue here: "January 4 2009 the poker site recorded 40 000 new registrations, bringing the total player base to 2.4 million,
17:
49:
677:
652:
635:
618:
596:
580:
566:
553:
528:
506:
477:
455:
434:
411:
387:
359:
338:
312:
294:
269:
247:
219:
198:
176:
63:
692:
36:
111:
106:
115:
407:
691:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
98:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
675:
292:
631:
sides of the debate; that's a first. Maybe I should think twice about commenting at an AFD next time. NOT!
541:
451:
403:
206:. The keep close of the previous AFD means that this article cannot be speedy deleted according to
194:
671:
649:
632:
614:
593:
563:
524:
473:
430:
334:
288:
265:
172:
351:
304:
383:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
666:
Has at least three reliable sources (Times Online, Forbes and the award given) thus meeting
502:
447:
243:
215:
667:
559:
394:
207:
186:
355:
308:
56:
159:
576:
549:
190:
606:
516:
465:
326:
322:
257:
163:
610:
520:
469:
426:
330:
261:
168:
379:
102:
132:
498:
490:
239:
211:
232:
641:
572:
545:
423:
significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject
421:
offer a bonus does not establish notability. Once again, there needs to be
393:
Cleaned up the article and added 6 references establishing notability per
519:
do we find "a website has a lot of members" as establishing notability?
94:
69:
282:. While I believe that this site deserves an article (it's the first
592:
per the improvements made to the article by
Linguist. Good work!
685:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
464:
Specifically, which of the sources establish notability per
446:-Based on the re-write, notability seems to be established.
231:. The eGaming Review award ("Hotshot operator of the year"
562:
here. I am sure the nom AFD'd the article in good faith.
515:
What makes RecentPoker.com a reliable source? Where in
139:
128:
124:
120:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
695:). No further edits should be made to this page.
376:list of video game related deletion discussions
85:Articles for deletion/PKR.com (2nd nomination)
8:
158:for some unfathomable reason. There are no
374:: This debate has been included in the
648:!vote from me; what more do you want?
77:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
76:
24:
605:And the "references" that meet
167:do not meet our requirements.
1:
80:Articles for deletion/PKR.com
678:09:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
653:08:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
636:08:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
619:03:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
597:22:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
581:23:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
567:22:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
554:21:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
529:03:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
507:17:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
478:17:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
456:17:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
435:17:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
412:15:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
388:15:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
360:17:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
339:17:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
313:14:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
295:10:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
270:17:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
248:10:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
220:10:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
199:08:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
177:07:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
160:independent reliable sources
64:10:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
712:
627:Wow, clearly attacked on
688:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
644:, you got your stupid
154:- previous AFD closed
75:AfDs for this article:
544:in reliable source.
162:that attest to the
495:Google News Search
187:who cares about it
44:The result was
542:Obviously notable
390:
50:non-admin closure
703:
690:
370:
301:Keep and rewrite
142:
136:
118:
62:
59:
34:
711:
710:
706:
705:
704:
702:
701:
700:
699:
693:deletion review
686:
404:LinguistAtLarge
138:
109:
93:
90:
73:
57:
53:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
709:
707:
698:
697:
681:
680:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
638:
622:
621:
600:
599:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
534:
533:
532:
531:
510:
509:
483:
482:
481:
480:
459:
458:
440:
439:
438:
437:
415:
414:
391:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
342:
341:
316:
315:
298:
275:
274:
273:
272:
251:
250:
225:
224:
223:
222:
149:
148:
89:
88:
87:
82:
74:
72:
67:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
708:
696:
694:
689:
683:
682:
679:
676:
673:
669:
665:
662:
661:
654:
651:
647:
643:
639:
637:
634:
630:
626:
625:
624:
623:
620:
616:
612:
608:
604:
603:
602:
601:
598:
595:
591:
588:
582:
578:
574:
570:
569:
568:
565:
561:
557:
556:
555:
551:
547:
543:
539:
536:
535:
530:
526:
522:
518:
514:
513:
512:
511:
508:
504:
500:
496:
492:
488:
485:
484:
479:
475:
471:
467:
463:
462:
461:
460:
457:
453:
449:
445:
442:
441:
436:
432:
428:
424:
419:
418:
417:
416:
413:
410:
409:
405:
400:
396:
392:
389:
385:
381:
377:
373:
369:
368:
361:
357:
353:
349:
346:
345:
344:
343:
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
320:
319:
318:
317:
314:
310:
306:
302:
299:
297:
296:
293:
290:
285:
281:
277:
276:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
254:
253:
252:
249:
245:
241:
237:
233:
230:
227:
226:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
202:
201:
200:
196:
192:
188:
184:
183:Speedy delete
181:
180:
179:
178:
174:
170:
165:
161:
157:
153:
146:
141:
134:
130:
126:
122:
117:
113:
108:
104:
100:
96:
92:
91:
86:
83:
81:
78:
71:
68:
66:
65:
61:
60:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
687:
684:
663:
645:
628:
589:
537:
486:
443:
422:
402:
398:
371:
347:
300:
283:
279:
278:
256:Please read
235:
228:
203:
182:
155:
151:
150:
54:
45:
43:
31:
28:
538:Speedy keep
448:Umbralcorax
164:notability
229:Weak keep
191:Alexius08
650:MuZemike
633:MuZemike
611:Otto4711
594:MuZemike
564:MuZemike
521:Otto4711
470:Otto4711
427:Otto4711
331:Otto4711
262:Otto4711
169:Otto4711
145:View log
499:J.Mundo
380:MrKIA11
348:Comment
323:notable
280:Neutral
204:Comment
112:protect
107:history
95:PKR.com
70:PKR.com
668:WP:GNG
395:WP:WEB
284:online
240:JulesH
236:always
212:JulesH
208:WP:CSD
152:Delete
140:delete
116:delete
352:KaySL
305:KaySL
143:) – (
133:views
125:watch
121:links
58:neuro
16:<
670:. -
664:Keep
646:keep
642:2005
629:both
615:talk
607:WP:N
590:Keep
577:talk
573:2005
558:OK,
550:talk
546:2005
525:talk
517:WP:N
503:talk
497:. --
493:and
487:Keep
474:talk
466:WP:N
452:talk
444:Keep
431:talk
399:Keep
384:talk
372:Note
356:talk
335:talk
327:WP:N
309:talk
266:talk
258:WP:N
244:talk
216:talk
195:talk
173:talk
156:keep
129:logs
103:talk
99:edit
46:keep
672:Mgm
560:AGF
540:.
408:Msg
289:Mgm
48:. (
617:)
579:)
552:)
527:)
505:)
476:)
468:?
454:)
433:)
425:.
406:•
401:.
397:.
386:)
378:.
358:)
337:)
329:.
311:)
268:)
246:)
218:)
210:.
197:)
189:?
185::
175:)
131:|
127:|
123:|
119:|
114:|
110:|
105:|
101:|
55:—
52:)
674:|
613:(
575:(
548:(
523:(
501:(
491:1
472:(
450:(
429:(
382:(
354:(
333:(
307:(
291:|
264:(
242:(
214:(
193:(
171:(
147:)
137:(
135:)
97:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.