Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Badger

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 speedy keep. This article was under an edit war by the nominator and User:2005. The Deletion process has NOT been followed, as the article hasnt been tagged for clean up or expansion. (non-admin closure) Dusti^SPEAK!! 01:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve_Badger

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

Non notable person. Has not had a significant cash in more than 7 years, prior to the start of the poker boom. Once un-sourced material was removed, article contains next to nothing about him.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DegenFarang (talk • contribs)

Delete - short, non notable. — Cargoking talk 17:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Article shrunk and attacked by editor with history of abusive edits to multiple BLP articles. Part of editor's wikihounding activities. World series of Poker winner with interviews, profiles online as well as quoted as an expert by the New York Times, etc. 2005 (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid deletion reasons given. The subject of the article is notable for multiple World Series of Poker wins, and a quick Google search shows significant amounts of media coverage. (The New York Times article alone demonstrates notability.) Length of time since a "significant cash" and word count for the article aren't valid deletion reasons. Rray (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well known player with a World Series of Poker bracelet. TheTakeover (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No RS's for much of the information that is/was in the article. Likely a self published article by User 2005. Subject is not notable in the way the article wording makes him out to be. If re-worded, only using RS's, I may change my vote. DegenFarang (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either the subject is notable or not. AfD is not the place to discuss article content, but objective criteria of subject notability (existence of, not correct use of, reliable sources). That said, I was unable to find any evidence of the subject's meeting the inclusion guidelines after a good-faith search. ^Bongo_matic 02:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well known poker player and bracelet winner.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only reliable source given is NYT article. Article (which was republished elsewhere) does not provide any significant coverage of Badger (although it relies on him as a source). Does not meet inclusion guidelines. ^Bongo_matic 02:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the diff of the actual article, before DegenFarang's violation of the 3RR policy with his fourth revert of the day. It includes refs to the New York Times and Conjelco.com, the official online source for the World series of Poker from 1995 to 2000 (during which the refed incident took place). Additionally the Hendon Mob has been determined to be a reliable source because Cardplayer Magazine uses its data. In addition to the interview external linked, there are numerous profiles of the subject, Cardplayer Magazine article plus quoted in articles here and here and here and [1], etc. A quick search also digs up The San Franciso Chronicle and plenty of other quotes and references on poker websites. The new York Times, San Francisco Chronicle and Cardplayer are all reliable sources that easily establish notability. 2005 (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hendon Mob may be reliable, but stats do not constitute "significant coverage". One of the Cardplayer references is by, not about the subject—not independent. Two others simply contain a brief quote, and another a longer quote—no coverage at all. The last Cardplayer reference makes only passing mention. Of all of the articles, the Chronicle comes closest, but in my view it does not provide sufficient coverage to raise him to the level of notability. ^Bongo_matic 02:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When an independant reliable source chooses to publish an article by a person, that is a notable act. It is one step beyond simply quoting the person. Please refer to Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic_criteria, WP:ATH and Wikipedia:POKER#Biography article notability criteria where a WSOP victory alone is viewed as generally notable. In addition the New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Conjelco/WSOP and Cardplayer coverage etablish notability even beyond the WSOP win. 2005 (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. My main criterion for poker players in general is more than one major win or high finish. He's got some smaller wins/cashes, but to balance that, he plays Omaha, which gets very very little news coverage. It's a no limit hold'em world. I haven't seen him on any of the regular TV shows (hold'em of course), and there aren't any in-depth articles about him. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tied for most wins in poker history is more than "one major win". His personal profile makes it clear he primarily played 1993-2000 and he doesn't play much poker anymore, so like all the dead or retired players he's not going to be on TV now. There is more to poker than No Limit Hold'em, and more to it than what is going on today on TV. Notability is not temporary. 2005 (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - How did this even get nominated!? Multiple cashes and plenty of reliable sources as noted by others in this discussion. Recent edits to this article should also be looked at, as it now has some ridiculous sounding text like the very first line, "Steve Badger is a poker player" - LOL. Hazir (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is reliably sourced (cardplayer magazine, sf chronicle, ny times, etc etc) and the subject is a notable poker bracelet winner from before the "poker explosion" and increased online interest (and sourcing.) The article was gutted before being nominated - classy. --guyzero | talk 17:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep While it is not an official guidline/policy, it is the WP:POKER's stance that winning a WSOP bracelet makes one notable. By winning said bracelet, he has eched his name as one Poker's elites. See Wikipedia:POKER#Biography_article_notability_criteria.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep plenty of reliable sources, major championships. I see no problem with notability. The deleted text in the article's history logs right before this nomination is quite disturbing. Royal broil 01:19, 20 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.