Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double Texas Hold'em

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) 17:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Double Texas Hold'em[edit]

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

lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Only references that have been uncovered to date are press releases or blog entries. Contested prod RadioFan (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a recently invented commercial game that has not received coverage beyond press releases or very brief repetitions of the rules posted on the inventor site. Previous "references" were a worthless. We don't make articles just because someone invents a game one day. Additionally article created by a single purpose account that almost certainly has a conflict of interest. Maybe someday it will qualify for an article, but as of now does not. 2005 (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons explained by the nominator - we need third party sources. JBsupreme (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete delete per nom. Yet to make a splash in the poker world. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Generally we don't have an article that just gives the rules of a game, although it does sound like fun.Northwestgnome (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually we do... ie Rules of chess (Category:Game rules). The difference being that no one in their right mind would dispute the notability of chess. Not to mention there are so many sources on the subject it would make your head spin. ;) JBsupreme (talk) 07:18, 30 December 2009 (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.