Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rakeback

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 merge to Rake (poker)#Rakeback. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rakeback (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)

Delete - There is nothing in this article that couldn't be neatly written in a couple of lines and included in the [glossary of poker terms]. The article includes a random, meaningless list of poker sites that offer rakeback, as well as an inane piece of PR written by Bodog (literally via PR Newswire). There is not enough substantive material out there to justify a standalone article for rakeback and this article will only exist as a magnet for spammers. Hazir (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The article topic isn't notable enough to warrant inclusion. Lots of information could probably be added to the article, but none of it would be encyclopedic. It would all be of the "this is how much of a rebate this site offers" type content. Rray (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Rakeback is the online equivalent of comps_(casino), which have their own article and clearly warrant one. There is plenty more content that can be added to this article. I invite anybody reading this to please help out! A simple review of the current listed references will show plenty more facts that can be added. There are many different types of rakeback - VIP programs, rake chases, rake races, valueback, cashback programs etc. Every network has there own stance toward rakeback for a different reason and this can be outlined as well as the chronology of such. Next rakeback has evolved since 2004 in a very notable way - major events have occurred because of it like PartyPoker booting off all of their skins in 2005, PokerStars taking a hard-line stance against it but later having the same thing with their VIP club - then Full Tilt wholly embracing it and becoming the main rakeback site. iPoker whaffling and going back and forth and currently not allowing it - but allowing many equivalents. Lots more RS's can be found I just don't have the time to find them myself right now. It may become a magnet for spammers but I'll be watching the article closely and will take responsibility for ensuring none of them have their spam included in the article. Rakeback is a far more detailed concept than can be conveyed in one or two lines. My main reason for wanting this article is that when you Google 'rakeback' you get nothing but spam. No objective information is available about what it is and how it benefits the players and the rooms - or which networks allow it and which do not. Hopefully this page would rank high and such information would be available to the poker playing public. DegenFarang (talk) 02:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it is also worth noting the nominating editors contribution history. I couldn't find one article where he has made an actual contribution. He does nothing but go around and remove content and suggest things for deletion and shoot down the hard work of others. I'm not suggesting he should be blocked for this behavior - but it should be noted that he evidently views every article as some type of police officer looking for a reason to remove content or nominate it for deletion - and rarely (if ever) takes the high road and spends the five minutes necessary to actually improve the article. DegenFarang (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amusing stuff coming from an editor who has been [blocked] at least five times! Hazir (talk) 06:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice ad hominem. Me getting blocked five times (mostly for arguing with people like you who I disagree with) has absolutely nothing to do with my 100% valid and relevant observation about your history as an editor. One who routinely recommends articles for deletion and removes the hard work of others should not have their nominations taken as seriously as a 'normal' editor who does the same thing. I don't know if there is a 'boy who cried wolf' WP:POLICY; if not, there should be, to apply to this very situation. DegenFarang (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to bite but can see why you've been banned so many times. How about we get back to the topic, which is whether there is enough substance to justify a standalone article for rakeback? I think not. Hazir (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Rake (poker)#Rakeback. Notability sufficient enough to warrant a fork is absent. The rakeback section in Rake (poker) is in need of some references, anyways. —LedgendGamer 06:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This topic does not merit its own Wikipedia article. There is already a section for this topic in Rake (poker) (see Rake (poker)#Rakeback) so there is no need for a stand alone article. It either belongs there or in the [glossary of poker terms]. Mandermagic (talk) 02:14, 24 February 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.