Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SitNGo Wizard

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

(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]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Keep Texas hold'em is the most popular form of cards in the world, AFAIK. This article is about a notable piece of software that is essential to contemporary online poker players. Several software reviewers have reviewed the software and it is highly recommended on poker forums.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:59, 19 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]

~~Delete~~Neutral. I don't see many reliable (non self published) sources cited, though I am not an expert on online poker. If somebody can prove that the sources are reliable, I'll change my !vote. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you consider reliable for poker software? I have included several independent software reviews.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changed to neutral. I'm not completely sure that the software is notable, but some of the reviews seem to hint at notability. Changed to neutral. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in previous format. Article is now much improved but still needs work. I'm not positive the software is notable enough for inclusion but I'm not an expert on the notability of businesses or services, so I'll leave that for others to decide. Previously it read like an advertisement, there have now been major improvements in that area. DegenFarang (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: the version (by me) that DegenFarang referred to as "much improved" was reverted by TonyTheTiger shortly thereafter to hi$ preferred ver$ion. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I reverted because I have not seen anyone attempt to remove inline citations since about 2007 or 2008. Your removal of inline citations was destructive.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I wrote here earlier, I removed spam links and questionable sources—fairly standard procedure around here. None of the references are to news sites. Example 1: pokersoftware.com/sitngo-wizard/. That page ends with an invitation for readers to "Submit your own review"; user-generated content isn't encyclopedic. Example 2: Ezinearticles.com is on the spam blacklist (probably why you didn't link it),which should have said something about their reputation. Example 3: sngwiz.com itself. A vendor's website should not be used as the source for claims about their own product.
      If any of the "refs" had been to solid reputable sites, I would have left them.
      If you haven't seen spam removed since 2007, perhaps it would be a good time to re-read some policy pages: WP:RS, WP:COI, WP:OWN, and last summer's community discussion of paid editing. The {{review}} and {{uw-tdel1}} templates might be a good idea as well. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Sorry but this is promotional editing and should not be encouraged on Wikipedia, as per WP:NOT AND WP:SPAM. A truly notable organization shouldn't have to entice editors to write a Wikipedia article on their product. I also think Tony should refrain from creating similar COI articles in the future. Them From Space 01:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They did not solicit me, I asked if they would give me a free registration for a copy of the software.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I tried to clean this up but there wasn't much left afterwards. Between the paid editing by the initial author, the zero Google news hits in English, and the lack of any reliable sources that cover the application, I don't see it as a keeper. The original version of the article had serious issues (such as violating {{review}}) which could be fixed, but there are no sources that cover this brand-new application. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know why you think removing inline citations improves the article. Your editing makes no sense.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: I removed them as references because they aren't from WP:RS. If you can find any solid sourcing (from outlets such as PC World) for this product, add it—but I looked and couldn't find any (again, note the zero news hits). Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepBeing written like an advertisement is a valid reason for a cleanup tag, but it's not a valid reason for deletion. Being written entirely by one editor is not a valid deletion reason either. Multiple references provide evidence of notability, which was the only valid deletion reason cited. Rray (talk) 03:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So because someone says, "Oh I got paid to do this and I'm being honest about it", then it's OK? What next for TonyTheTiger, there's any number of crappy poker tools out there that he could create weasely articles for. Hazir (talk) 05:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A few reviews is not proof of importance/notability, they merely confirm that the software exists.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Expand: We do not have articles on every musical album or every book that is published. Similarly, we do not have an article on every piece of software released. Simple reviews is not sufficeint to show that the item in question is notable---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is currently protected. The deletion vote should be suspended until the article is unprotected, so references can be added, it can be made to word less like an ad, etc. Samboy (talk) 02:02, 20 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]

Request for clarification Do the following count as WP:RS?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I've found so far after a quick look:

ontherail.co.uk: was referred to here as not counting as a reputable, third-party source.
pokersoftware.com: based on this press release the site is less than three months old, so it's too early to say.
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

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]

Delete Clearly Promotional and lacks reliable sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but desperately needs cleanup). Reviewed by multiple independent sources that are cited in article. LotLE×talk 18:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatantly promotional and lacks reliable sources. TonyTheTiger's receipt of $99 worth of goods in exchange for creating this article is perhaps the most revolting instance of COI I have encountered in several years of editing. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we still ignore IPs in AFD discussions?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. IPs don't count in RFA and RFBs. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I don't know much about the reliability of these sites, but three of the reviews [1] [2] [3] appear to engage in enough critical thinking, and only [4] appears a mere advertorial. So, despite the obvious WP:COI#Financial issues with the creator of this article, a NPOV version can be written. TonyTheTiger, who appears to be only financially motivated to edit this (in that he didn't seem to even understand the main market for this software at the beginning of the AfD) should definitely WP:DISENGAGE from editing the article though. The fact that we don't have articles on more notable Poker software is an argument to create those articles, not to delete this one. Pcap ping 22:05, 22 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]

Strong delete. This is blatantly promotional, and we're not an ad service. Unit Anode 03:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I do not believe the subject passes notability standards. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reviews found by Pcap. Appears to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, horrible COI issues aside (and Tony really should have known better than to do this), I'm not sure that a handful of reviews demonstrate the sort of coverage that indicates notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Do you mean non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources? I don't see why reviews don't meet that requirement. And COI, especially the (now) disclosed COI, isn't a reason for deletion. Hobit (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for a variety of reasons - COI, advertising, questionable notability - this one sets off every red flag in my book. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, came past here a couple of days ago and the COI aside the bar for notability is not met. Darrenhusted (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was not going to joint this discussion but the wrong buttons were pushed. I went searching for any notability guidelines that might apply for products in the area. There are none, but several failed ones. I don't see this article meeting the points suggested in those failed proposals. There is one essay that probably covers this and this article does not meet the criteria laid out there. It is correct that WP:COI is not a reason to delete. However WP:COI with WP:ADVERT issues is. Add to that the questions raised about meeting WP:RS and WP:N and deletion seems to be the wisest choice at this time. Maybe in the future when those issues can be resolved the article can be created, but for for now it should go. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for finding the software essay. That will give me something to look at in hopes of reformulating the article in the future.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:34, 24 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.