Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poker blog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. - Mailer Diablo 11:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poker blog

A poker blog is a blog about poker, so we need a whole article on it? Also, this violates wikipedias policy of no original research. Skrewler 00:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I originally nominated this for speedy for being patently obvious. --Timecop 00:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately being patently obvious is not on the criteria for speedy deletion apart from if the article says little more than is in the title, unlike this case. Delete. -- Francs2000 00:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Femmina 00:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Useless 65.34.232.136 02:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: An extended dictdef. Geogre 03:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Too vague, dictdef. - splot 03:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme annoying chick delete --Phroziac(talk) 03:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete What's next, "Cornhusking blog: a blog about cornhusking. Some are mostly spam." Jasmol 04:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Nope, sorry, "blogs" are not worth a shit in the real world. JacksonBrown 05:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Ridiculous - this is supposed to emulate an encyclopedia, right? :P TedBerg 05:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - poker is ok and blogs are ok, but put the two together and you have less than what you started with. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, content painfully obivous from title. Would also set very bad precedent for food blogs, fashion blogs, soccer blogs, etc. There's nothing special about a blog having a certain topic. - Mgm|(talk) 09:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I'll tell you what's next: some article about Canadian progressivists blog... oh wait... Dottore So 11:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is a waste of bandwidth -- pure vanity. --86.2.56.178 12:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not vanity, but it is a waste of bandwidth. Also, anonymous users aren't allowed to vote on AFD, but it looks like it's getting deleted anyway. --Phroziac(talk) 13:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Agreed, not really worth noting at this point and time. --Depakote 12:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Is this Wikipedia or Blogopedia? This is becoming depressing. --Impi.za 15:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Utterly, utterly worthless cruft. Reyk 00:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This is almost a transwiki to Wiktionary... but since it isn't, delete. Titoxd(?!?) 04:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per what they said. - Randwicked 07:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unencyclopedic, pointless, and spammy. - brenneman(t)(c) 10:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Incognito 12:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, some nice men told me to. Alphax τεχ 15:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Dictdef. Slartoff 02:44, 18 November 2005 (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.