Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 18 Cup for Poker

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 of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The_18_Cup_for_Poker

This article is about a group of friends weekly low-limit poker game, and as such I believe it's just a vanity page. Bjayakody

• "[T]he greatest non-advertised poker tournament in the world"??? How can it be anything but vanity? My poker game takes that title! Delete.--KJPurscell 08:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• To begin with, I would hardly call the attendees of The 18 Cup a group of friends. Hardly anyone likes anyone. Secondly, if ours is a vanity page as you seem to think, I believe this is just another example of someone with power flaunting it. How could this be anything but a vanity page for KJPurscell to say that HIS game is the greatest in the world. To finish with, there are visitors to the page in question who do not participate in the tournament, though who want to know who in fact holds the Cup. It is an important contribution to the Wikipedia as a whole in the view of the dozens of people who view it to gain valuable information from it. Do not delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TexMex (talk • contribs).
  • User's only edits to Wikipedia are to this article and the AfD. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • But mine are not and I think it should stay. Feel free to check out my contributions Tmothyh 03:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete classic vanity + nonsense as my poker tournament is actually the greatest MLA 13:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• This article only exists to advertise the tournament, which is billed as the greatest non-advertised poker tournament in the world. Hence, either the article shouldn't exist, or the tournament shouldn't exist. It is logically impossible for both the tournament and the article to exist. Q.E.D. Delete. --Elkman - ^(talk) 14:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC) I am removing this vote and recusing myself from this discussion per vandalism to my user page. --Elkman - ^(talk) 14:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable vanity. The only reason to keep would be as Exhibit A for expanding CSD. Turnstep 15:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Patently non-notable, WP:VSCA. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to strong delete after vandalism to my user page and tagging of several legitimate articles I've created for AfD. Childish trolling by 125.255.16.172 isn't going to get me to change my already low opinion of this page, unless you count making it go even lower. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • In fact I do count your falling opinion of our page as a change. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.130.104.143 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 17 March 2006.
      • "Your" page. Interesting. It seems that when your friend at 125.255.16.172 vandalized my user page, standards of "who owns what" (as well as WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL) didn't apply. But when the deletion of "your" page is up for question, you have to protect "your" ownership. As a side note, I hear that My Space allows people to build their own sites for community participation, blogging, and other sort of things that might be helpful for a poker playing community. --Elkman - ^(talk) 23:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep perhaps change the part that claims to be the greatest poker event. There have been many views of this page and people may want to know who holds the cup. Tmothyh
• Delete as NN vanity, "In fact I do count your falling opinion of our page as a change." - this page belongs to the wikipedia community, build your page on your own web site. Dan, the CowMan 23:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Obliterate Come and get me you vandals. I'm ready! --D-Day ^{My fan mail. Click to view my evil user boxes} 23:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per D-Day (and most other delete comments). Petros471 23:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete This is vanity, and I expect it will go down in history with NUGGET and The Walking Game. I'm ready for you, vandals! (Not that I expect you would want to vandalize such a boring page.) ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 05:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• I am strongly offended that all people who support this page are being tagged as vandals. I believe I have made my views known in a polite manner and have kept to topic. I have also had the courtesy to add my name to each and every post. I also think that some of the comments supporting deletion have been smug and demeaning to the tournament Tmothyh 06:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Read the edits to my user page and then try to tell me that wasn't vandalism. Or, read what someone tagged on Kinu's page and tell me that wasn't vandalism either. When that sort of thing happens -- especially to my own user page and in such personal terms -- I stop assuming good faith. And given that supporters of this article want to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, it's no surprise that others after me are suspecting further vandalism. --Elkman - ^(talk) 13:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I have just read the things you point to and I think they are deplorable. What I have said (and I believe you have misread)is that people have accused all contributors and supporters of this page of being vandals. Clearly neither Tex Mex or myself are, we have kept things civil and tried to keep within the wiki guidelines throughout this ordeal. This whole process is most disappointing and does not reflect well on many people who have come in provocitably asking for the page to be "nuked". If you must vote to delete this humble page then do so with the same sense of civility that Tex Mex and Myself have defended our newbie page. But I guess that Wiki policy on not biting the newbies doesn't apply when there is a wave of hysteria. Tmothyh 21:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Maybe you should have read your first article. There is a prominent link to it when you are creating a page. Also, I don't consider this a wave of hysteria, not by a long shot. Does it look like we're biting you? If it does, we apologize. A good idea is not to participate in Wikipedia's affairs (basically, Wikipedia namespace) until you have 50-100 edits. By this time, you have a good feel for the project, and you usually don't get caught up in things like this. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 17:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• I am in support of my colleague here. The fact that it has already been mentioned that a wide variety of people do in fact view this page as a source of information seems to be the reason why a few vandals have come out of the works. And the fact that because this has garnered some heat over the recent days is hardly reason enough to have a load of people support the deletion of this fine article because a friend was vandalised, or there is controversy associated with the entry. There is no reason to suggest a strong delete because you were not vandalised. All I see this page being used for is personal enjoyment of people challenging vandals to attack them, inciting a "Wiki-war" in the hopes that, and I believe this to be true, someone tracks the people down and makes troubles for them. This nomination for deletion is nothing more than another opportunity for a person with some power or nothing to do to nit-pick and start a fight with people who don't know better. Rather than challenging the reckless minority and making our simple article look bad and worthy of deleting, take the high road, as two of us have done and either help in fine-tuning of the article, or giving advice, as the respectable Elkman did (and I thank you for your advice pertaining to My Space, as it seems almost certain that our poor article will be deleted now), or sit back and don't meddle in problems that don't concern you. If you believe the article should be deleted, fine, leave your vote and reason, but do not turn this into a barbaric flame war. Tex Mex 05:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Also, if anyone is knowledgeable in the My Space processes, please, we request your help to transfer our information over to a new page and set it up so that it can act as a 'community-page' Tex Mex 05:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You may think that. Personally, I don't have anything against the article, it just isn't notable enough. Really, you should put it on My Space or Everything2 (in my opinion, Everything2 would be more appropriate). I don't think anybody is trying to turn this into a flame war, either. Remember, assume good faith. Also, you should tell your friends who also support this article to stop vandalizing user pages. Sorry if this is stereotyping all supporters of this page as vandals, but most of them are. This just happens too much in debates like this. We are making this article look worthy of deleting, because it is. Not everything belongs on Wikipedia, and this clearly falls under WP:VANITY. If you read this policy with an open mind, I think you will agree. On a final note, I don't think anybody reads this page for "information". I think it's interesting, but, like I said, better served on Everything2. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 06:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, obliterate, and then nuke it. Vandalism as an answer to an AfD on a non-notable third-rate poker tournament is not acceptable. —Nightstallion (?) 10:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• I have indeed read the vanity guidelines, and this is where the controversy, for myself, begins. For example, I know it's not compulsory, but for me, in my own shoes, to "assume good faith", I would be much more ready to do this if, for example, this had happened: "Suggestion: before beginning any deletion procedures on a vanity article, it is sometimes found that by simply politely informing the creator of the article that this appears to be a vanity article, and by pointing him or her to this page first, that the author him or her self will sometimes easily agree to the deletion him or herself, thus saving much waste of time and energy on the parts of all concerned parties." Also, there have not been many edits because the information contained within the page will only change per the winner each week. The article is not there to further the 'popularity' or 'fame' of The 18 Cup, it merely exists to inform those that want to know about the past week's winner and current champion. Because this is an non-advertised Tournament, please do not rule this a vanity article because two of the competitors are writing it, as, on the vanity guidelines, this is not reason enough because the "subjects" are writing the article. There have been no vanity edits, such as links that promote the event or the individuals, no photographic material, and the article is quite clear and straight forward. We have salient and verifiable facts in here, and, because the tournament is not advertised, there are, of course, only a few select places where these facts can be corroborated, such as participant's blogs. Finally, I see no real information that should be on a user page that cannot co-exist with this article. My vote, do not delete because some people don't know how to contain themselves. Tex Mex 09:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

  If it doesn't violate WP:VANITY, it violates WP:NOTABILITY. I stand by my decision. —Nightstallion (?) 11:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

  People may want to know about it, but they won't want to know it on an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are for things like the Boston Molasses Disaster. If they want to know about the past week's winner, they should do it somewhere else.If it was advertised, and a large number of people knew about it, then maybe it would be acceptable. What do you mean by "some people don't know how to contain themselves"? You have just said yourself that the participants have blogs. Put this article there! ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 17:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. Cnwb 04:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• The problem we have here is that eight of the votes are due to vanity or other reasons other than notability, such as the persons who are voting just to incite vandals. If these people feel the need to continue for a vote which has less backing of all the reasons, then, of course, they are free to. But, in reference to these people that feel the need to vote for a delete on NN, as per Wikipedia "curtesy rules" as I have read them, please explain your vote for us. As the Notability page says, not all notable subjects are famous or important. It is well understood by us that this article is not of a 100% neutral point of view, however, as ςפקSFGiants has put forward, to really have a complete grasp of the method and nature of a Wikipedia Article, an author would need 50-100 edits and the like. We don't have that amount of edits, nor did we when we started the aricle, however, we are working on trying to get our heads around this, and will continue to in the future, in the hopes to improve this article, as well as the greater Wikipedia. Also, this article doesn't fit under any of the eight entries under the "What Wikipedia is not" entry: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", nor does it have anything to do with the future, or predictions. Even the Notablity article says that the definition of notability is subject to some conjecture, and that some editors may instead mean: original research, which this is clearly not, unverifiable, which this is, or a vanity page, which some people are now realising it is not this kind either. The article, by the Wikipedian definition of importance, is relevent to a reasonable number of people as well. Lack-of assumption seems to be key to the notability of an article, do not assume that something isn't notable because you havn't heard of it. There are people within our community that have heard of this tournament, and a substainial amount of these people read this article for the information it contains, such as winners, any new participants, etc. Also, I am not sure about this specifically, but if the first vote is how this article was put up for nomination for deletion, I believe that this nomination should be taken down because of the lack-of-backing for a nomination for vanity, as it is quite clear this is not a vanity article. I also raise the question as to how this page was "discovered", was it searched for, in which case it is somewhat notable, or was it a chance for someone else to just raise thier level of "activity" on thier own user page, and to appear more like an editor. Finally, please, tell us why this article should be taken down on terms of notability, not for one or two, but for the case of all the votes, so that you can pay us the curtesy and help us keep non-notable articles off this project. Tex Mex 04:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • By way of backing up my non-notable vote, as per the request by Tex Mex - the article does not establish why this poker tournament is notable. None of the players are notable, the venue isn't listed, the pot is a mere $2 per player, it has only been running since last year, and it does not receive media attention. It therefore appears to me to be a non-notable subject. Cnwb 06:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Remember, interpret all rules. A small poker tournament isn't on WP:Not, but that doesn't mean it's notable. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 16:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

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.