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 merge to Full Tilt Poker. MBisanz ^talk 02:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Full Tilt Online Poker Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Internet poker tournament. Subject seems to have received no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as is required per WP:NOTE. Sloane (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. Subject has receuved innumerable significant mentions in reliable sources. Google News shows many mentions and a Google search shows 219,000 results. 2005 (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Google News seems to list only other poker sites, are there no serious sources covering this? And Google hits are never a reason for inclusion.--Sloane (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand your comment. Of course most mentions are on poker sites. It's a poker topic. I just added refs from the two most reliable sources available for poker tournaments. It is plainly obvious the subject has very, very, very wide coverage, and is covered extensively in reliable sources, so your nomination is baffling. 2005 (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I recommend you to read WP:RS. "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." That means sources like the New York Times or CNN, I doubt commercial poker sites have much of a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".--Sloane (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No it doesn't mean that, and suggesting that a generic newspaper is a more reliable source than expert, longstanding, reliable niche publications is utterly absurd. Golf Digest or Billboard are are not authorities on geology, but they are among the best sources for golf and popular music. I reccomend you not edit niche articles until you have a better understanding of WP:V. These niche sources have a history both of relaibility, and in Cardplayer's case, more than 20 years of unchallenged general reliability. You seem to be making a case out of your own lack of knowledge and disrespect for sources, despite not presenting any evidence of unreliability, or even any logic in making this nomination. Additionally we aren't talking about a cure for cancer here. The article merely explains what the notable event is here, plus offers results. 2005 (talk) 07:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The publicated version of cardplayer would be decent, but the source that's linked now is the online version and just lists the tournament's results. Cardplayer lists literally thousands of tournaments, they're not all notable.--Sloane (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Make this a section in Full Tilt Poker. I don't think it's notable enough for its own article; it would fit in there just fine. PhGustaf (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the text portion as above, kill the table. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Plenty of reliable sources to establish notability. Also, to assume that a source isn't reliable just because it's on the subject of "poker" is just silly. Rray (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Full Tilt Poker. Macarion (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.