Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SitNGo Wizard

Add links
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 was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SitNGo Wizard

[edit]
SitNGo Wizard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

SitNGo Wizard is written like an advertisement, even though I have removed several peacock term filled sentences. It also has questionable notability as it is an obscure software product applicable to only one form of poker, and has been written entirely by one editor... DegenFarang (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The software does not apply to texas hold em, not even online texas hold em, it applies only to sitngo tournaments which make up a very small portion of the overall poker and indeed, online poker, pool of games. DegenFarang (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It pertains to the end game of any tournament. Also, as I understand it SNGs are now the most popular form of online poker.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again with the peacock terms - you should work in advertising. I don't know how you define 'most popular' but a simple glance at the lobby of any online poker site will show you cash games are far more "popular", and it isn't close. I used to play SNG's a lot, I have used several of the SNG tools. And because of this I know that any software in this niche applies to a very small group of people, maybe 10,000 at most, who actually take SNG"s seriously. Misstating the notability of this tool is not going to help you here, you keep trying to make it sound more important than it really is - instead you should focus on making the article more neutral and maybe this part wont matter. DegenFarang (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure I have written the article in exchange for a free registration (which would cost me $99 after the 30-day trial ends).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. note that in critical review I showed both pluses and minuses to retain a neutral point of view.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed you owned it but yes, from reading it, it is very clear you were biased. Though I give you tremendous credit for admitting that when nobody could have proven otherwise. See CardRunners (which I created, with no incentive) for what a neutral and objective article of a poker product should look like, in my opinion. DegenFarang (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also wrote PokerTracker, which is a WP:GA. I am receptive to critical advice in regards to bias, but feel I have included both pluses and minuses.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PokerTracker is a very good article, other than the end where there is a huge paragraph of praise from other websites. When I'm not so tired I will go in and clean that up - or somebody else can. Other than that, you should strive for the neutrality of the PokerTracker article and not give so much background information on the SNG structure and the need for this software (that is all a sales pitch, if a subtle one). Just explain the software and what it does, don't explain the need people have for the software - that should be self-evident if it is notable enough for inclusion. DegenFarang (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, like any other protected article, if there is something to be added, a request can be made on the talk page and it can be added.
In addition, references missing from the article may be presented in the AfD to show notability and then re-added in later after the closure. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's what I've found so far after a quick look:
  1. ontherail.co.uk: was referred to here as not counting as a reputable, third-party source.
  2. pokersoftware.com: based on this press release the site is less than three months old, so it's too early to say.
  3. parttimepoker.com: based on this, it doesn't sound promising.
If you search for each site on Google News, none are being used by news sources as a reference, which would have been a point in their favor. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure g-testing poker software is a fair test. Would any of the following show up in google news: Bluff Magazine, Card Player, Poker Road or Poker News Daily? If you look around you will see that there is no poker software on wikipedia and we know this is a scientific endeavor with people trying to gain advantages with technology. I think that traditional RS tests may just be biased against poker.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then how do you propose to demonstrate that these sites have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Someguy1221 (talk) 07:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is that what a google news tests for? I don't know that that is the case. In terms of the sources above, I am surprised On The Rail is not considered a RS. Personally, if it just lets Kara Scott write whatever she feels, I would trust her or whomever. It seems they rely on experts although they might not fact check. I was under the impression that new rules on blogging admit unreviewed commentary by experts. I think poker is getting shafted, because they may not use the same journalistic approach as other fields. I don't think the traditional journalism paradigm fits poker. Many sources that the public relies on may just be expert opinions that are not reviewed in traditional journalistic ways.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further on the On The Rail source. According to DoriSmith (talk · contribs) it is not a RS. However, look at the review. It is by the Managing Editor of Poker Player Magazine. This makes it as reliable as any blog by an expert at the very least and in the current environment, we do consider blogs by experts to be reliable sources if I am understanding WP:RS correctly. Can Dori comment on this?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SOURCE QUERY given the source above, I stumbled upon the following online mentions of the software and want to know if they are considered WP:RSs
  1. http://www.pokerplayer.co.uk/poker-equipment/poker-accessories/8569/sitngo-software-tools-reviewed.html
  2. http://www.pokerplayer.co.uk/poker-strategy/sit-and-go-poker/4866/poker-stt-strategy.html
Tony I think an article on the genre of this type of software would be more than acceptable, my problem is that *I* do not see this particular piece of software as being notable. Has it had some reviews? Yes. But a lot of software products, just as a lot of books get reviewed. Simply because a book is reviewed does not make the book worthy of an entry, similarly, just because a piece of software gets reviewed does not make it worthy of an entry.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I were to create an article for a book that you have never heard of that had been reviewed in RSs, wouldn't it pass at AFD. We should not be going by personal opinions on what is notable. If the managing editor of a major poker magazine reviews a software and several other reliable reviewers review it that makes it WP:N. My question, which it would be helpful if you would respond to, is whether you consider the sources above to be WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Poker Player Magazine is an RS - however all they did was a review. Even all books and cd's that are reviewed by the New York Times are not notable simply because of that review. When extremely notable poker resources like DeucesCracked and BlueFirePoker do not even have their own articles - not to mention the entire category of poker training websites - I find it a huge stretch to see how this software is notable enough to have its own article. An article on SNG software I guess would be better than this - though a general poker software or online poker tools article would be better, so the training sites and non-SNG software could be includedDegenFarang (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeucesCracked has lots of discussion about this software, but they are a poker forum. I was told about this at 2+2, but did not view them as a RS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TwoPlusTwo has even more discussion about it on their forums.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood me. I was not saying DeucesCracked is an RS, I was saying they are far more deserving of an article than SNG Wizard. And there are probably 50-100 other poker products and services that lie between the two on the poker notability scale. DeucesCracked has a poker forum however the purpose of the website is to provide poker training videos to subscribers for a monthly fee, the same as CardRunners, BlueFirePoker, LeggoPoker, StoxPoker and many others DegenFarang (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A book review doesn't mean the book is notable. Take a little challenge. Goto Amazon.COM, select a word, any word, and put it into the search engine. Pick the Xth book, and then do a search for book reviews. I just did five books, and I was five for five on finding book reviews on those books. Having a review, even in reliable sources, proves existence, it does not prove notability. A book with just a few short reviews would likely be deleted. As for forums, no they are not reliable sources---but you know that.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I get the point that most published books have reviews somewhere. I also admit that although I have produced GAs for both software (PokerTracker) and books (Encyclopedia of Chicago and A More Perfect Union: Advancing New American Rights), I am not an expert on notability for either topic and am in a gray area that I do not understand on what constitutes notability. I am just not sure that the decision is being based on lack of notability. It seems that a lot of the problem is that I asked for a copy of the software in exchange for writing an article. If I told you I received two tickets to a show at the Chicago Theatre would it make that subject any more or less notable? I think not. What I need to understand is whether any of the extant or proposed sources is considered reliable. If Poker Player Magazine is a reliable source, I think we have at least three reliable sources for the article and two more than when this discussion started. Am I correct that we have at least three reliable sources for this article now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disputing that Poker Player Magazine is not reliable... I think it is. But having a review, does not make it reliable. When I lived in Denver, the local dinner theater always had it's shows reviewed by numerous notable sources---the Rocky Mountain News, Denver Post, Westwood Magazine, 5280 Magazine, etc. Does that mean that when the local dinner theater produces "WestSide Story" that their rendition of WestSide Story is notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia? Poker Magazines are very niche and are going to have a fairly low barrier to coverage because they are looking for esoteric things that fill their niche. It's a niche that I enjoy, but that does not mean that it conveys notability to it.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are saying that I have found some reliable sources, but you are comparing this to local theater. Why is it so prominently mentioned in the leading international poker forums such as DeucesCracked and TwoPlusTwo? It is even mentioned a few times at bluff magazine] and Poker Road.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, your lack of poker knowledge betrays you. DeucesCracked is not a 'leading international poker forum' - nowhere close - they are a poker training website. This doesn't change your point, it does however magnify the fact that you are a poker noob and most likely unqualified to objectively determine the notability of poker products and services (though nearly every single poker noob - other than Darvin Moon) - will vehemently disagree with a statement like that, it is perhaps this very trait that makes them all noobs). I get that you are an SNG player and that you were compensated to write this article: thus it is very notable to you. That does not mean it is in fact notable in reality. A poll of serious live and online poker players and people in the industry would likely reveal less than 10% of them have even heard of this product, though its 300,000 Alexa does point to a not-insignificant number of people using it. DegenFarang (talk) 06:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP is not about figuring out which are the most important topics and adding them in order. I work on a ton of athletes for example and probably none of the veterans that I have worked on will ever go to the hall of fame for their sports (Tyrone Wheatley, Cato June and Tai Streets for example). I have spent a lot of time on Rob Pelinka, but almost none on Kobe Bryant. Pelinka is a virtual unknown. Probably less than 10% of basketball fans have heard of him. Since we overlapped in the Ross School of Business by a year he is sort of a classmate of mine and I decided to work on an article that hit home. In poker I have worked on the three poker tools that I use. Even if there are 50 other poker topics that are more important that does not mean that you should delete these to encourage me to work on the most important. The minimal compensation that I received is so off-topic in regards to the notability, that I don't understand why you try to cloud the notability argument with it. Yes I am a noob. I am approaching 84,000 hands of real money games. I have done a lot of fairly rare things for my level of experience, including ITMing 7 consecutive tournaments and playing profitably 8 consecutive days of at least a half dozen tournaments each. In my first 800 tournaments, I turned $50 to over $800. Part of my rapid learning has been good use of poker tools. The ones I use are widely-used. They are highly recommended at twoplustwo.com, which is an international poker forum. It is highly discussed at DeucesCracked, whether it is a poker forum or not. DeucesCracked does appeal to the international audience and as such its nuerous mentions of the tool is a relevant consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've never worked on athlete articles but common sense would tell me any NBA player with gets somewhat regular playing time would be notable. Simply being a poker tool used by some people is not automatically notable in the same way. People mention all sorts of things with regularity on poker forums - that doesn't make them notable. Forum postings are about the furthest thing from an RS I can imagine, and for good reason. DegenFarang (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What could be a better indicator that a poker tool is notable than that dozens of poker players use it and talk about using it on forums.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Perhaps Tony can create those articles too for $100 a pop? Might as well solicit some sports tipping sites and discount Nike shoe e-stores while he's at it. Hazir (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SitNGo_Wizard&oldid=1138770833"