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 speedy deleted --Aude (talk) 08:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poker legends

[edit]

Contested PROD. Personal essay, rife with original research, POV and unencyclopedic language with no attempt whatsoever at referencing, categories or plain readability. Nothing of any value whatsoever. Please delete. role^player 23:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete An article about poker players might be useful if approached in the right way, but this is just random blabbering by some random guy and isn't even useful as a starting point for a real article. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 02:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - There is absolutely nothing encyclopedic about this page. First off, it's an essay, which we shouldn't have on here. Personally, I question whether any of this is even true. I watch poker occasionally and have never heard of any of the "Legends"; the only players I know are listed in the second sentence, and a couple of them are misspelled. Also, the last part looks like a personal attack. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the "legends" are WizardWithWords (talk · contribs) and his friends. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Likely a hoax made by bored kids. It's a mixture of Personal essay, short fiction and bragging. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 06:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk. JuJube (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Sounds like somebody who lost his money early in the game. If he's as good at cards as he is with words, I can understand. Mandsford (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I'm sure this AfD doesn't need my vote as it's a cast iron certainty to go but for what it's worth it's not encyclopedic, it's quite possibly a hoax, it's an essay, it's just not salvageable. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 21:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball that baby as utter silliness. Graymornings_(talk) 02:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This is obvious spam. Timneu22 (talk) 02:50, 19 January 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.