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 keep. - filelakeshoe 16:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article sounds like an advertisement... Jayson (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree. Doesn't look globally notable to me. Merge anything encyclopedic (if it even exists) to the website owners article page. The owner is a notable figure being an OBE but the article certainly doesn't contain encyclopedic content at present. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 10:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not particularly stunning in its current form, but the fact (1) it is the first poker site to offer multiplayer poker in 3D is notable in my opinion. Also, I did a cursory comparison with other major poker sites and they rank much better than everestpoker.net and pokerstars.net, and slightly better than Pokerstars.com when it comes to (2) visitor numbers (according to Alexa.com). They also (3) won an award at the 2008 eGaming Review Awards. I took that from the PKR.com site, but we obviously would need to reference the award site or a newspaper for that fact. - Mgm|(talk) 11:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expand and add sources. --Gene_poole (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well if your're both sure something encyclopedic can come of it. It looks like an advert to me. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I get the general gist of what you're saying, but please reword anyway, because what you said above is ungrammatical. - Mgm|(talk) 15:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the GNews hits look like recycled press releases that are posted to poker-related websites which do not to the best of my knowledge have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as required by WP:RS. The mention of this site in the book "Bigger Deal" is literally one sentence out of a 291-page manuscript. This is the definition of a trivial mention and may in no way be considered an indicator of notability. There is nothing here to support the existence of this article. Otto4711 (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs a copyedit is not grounds for deletion, other arguments simply don't hold up upon inspection. WilyD 15:33, 3 November 2008 (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.