Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WinHoldEm

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WinHoldEm[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Online game which appears on plenty of download sites but seems to have no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:RS andy (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage of this in notable WP:Reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete web content with no notability asserted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. This poke bot has been mentioned in news stories, but has not got significant coverage. For example, this Sydney Herald article focuses on a poker playing program called Polaris, and simply mentions WinHoldEm as an example of a bot. -- Whpq (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not satisfy notability guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the multiple and significant coverage parts of WP:GNG. Mentioned in a (very) few articles, as Whpq notes, but nothing substantive has specifically been written about it other than the one Wired article, as far as I can tell. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For obvious reasons. This is/was the first commercially available pokerbot in the history of online poker. It was also used in the 2007 PBWC which was the first poker tournament where bots were contestans along side humans. --Riitoken (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Regarding the links you recently added; our WP:Notability policies requires multiple examples of non-trivial, significant coverage. The MSNBC article mentions WinHoldem once. The other article mentions it several times, but the coverage is still minimal. Press releases don't count towards notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Print The wired magazine article is an actual print article in the magazine Wired - look it up - has Jon Steward on the cover. "On the Internet Nobody knows you're a Bot" - Page 96. --Riitoken (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: yes, and as I have noted in my recommendation, that's one source. One does not equal the multiple needed for WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable: open this page http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/ and search for 'Winholdem' all time. Then search their archive server which goes back before 2007. Then consider that there has been a user participation http://forum.winholdem.net site since 2004 which is the single largest repository for pokerbot related information on the entire internet (world). Winholdem is very notable in the poker world. --Riitoken (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you take the time to read WP:Reliable sources, you'll see that forums do not qualify, especially for establishing notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes which is why I'm noting that here instead of in the article. It goes to the overall issue of Notoriety which is well established in the Poker world. --Riitoken (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But well-established by what reliable sources? I think we're going in circles here. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from the Wired article, I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources. The MSNBC and ThisIsMoney articles deal with the phenomenon of bots in general and give only trivial mentions to the article subject. PR is obviously unreliable. Google turns up a raft of first-party and download links, but nothing reliable. Google News turns up nothing significant. There also appear to be some COI/self-promotion issues. » scoops “5x5„ 02:43, 20 January 2011 (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.