Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constant Rijkenberg


 * 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) 02:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Constant Rijkenberg

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I'm not sure about notability here or he's just an WP:BLP1E issue. He won a single tournament but poker doesn't seem to meet the general WP:ATHLETE criteria here. The creator seems intent on only using this for an attack piece based on some poorly sourced rumor. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Well, sources can be found to document the win, so this comes down to one question- does the European Poker Tour satisfy WP:ATHLETE? The exact wording in question is this:"Participation in and, in most cases, winning individual tournaments, except the most prestigious events, does not make non-athletic competitors notable. This includes, but is not limited to, poker, bridge, chess, Magic:The Gathering, Starcraft, etc." The EPT is by no means among the "most prestigious events" in poker- that is the World Series of Poker, or possibly the World Poker Tour.  Without other notable deeds, delete. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.  -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are very wrong about the prestigiousness of the EPT - it is far more prestigious than the WPT. Any single EPT event is valued far more than ANY tournament in the world, with the exceptions of: The WSOP Main Event, The WSOP $50k HORSE Event and the WSOPE Main Event. So we are talking about the 4th-15th+ most prestigious events in the world. In my view all of the winners of these events satisfy the requirements and they all should have their own articles. DegenFarang (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Numerous one-off tournament winners are included on Wikipedia and his win was for more than $2,000,000. The staking scandal is well known, there is a 7,000 post thread about it on pokernews.nl as well as an article on ThePlayr.com. ThePlayr.com is hardly a poor source for this information as Constant Rijkenberg was at a time a ThePlayr.com Team Pro, Constant is a 10% owner of ThePlayr.com and ThePlayr.com repoters did a number of interviews with him at EPT San Remo (the event he won) and EPT Monte Carlo (the EPT event which occurred a few days later). DegenFarang (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also I think if the article was 'fleshed out' more with information readily available from a number of credible sources, it would seem more relevant. I do not have the time to do this however and am not very good at creating articles. When I started this article many months ago (and long before inclusion of the staking scandal information) I had assumed others would do so. However since his following is mostly Dutch, that may explain why it has not happened yet DegenFarang (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A thread of internet posts, even a long one, is not an adequate source for negative biographical information on a living person; neither is a website like ThePlayr.com. Per WP:NPF policy,
 * -- JN 466  16:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Though I congratulate him on his win, the tournament does not appear to be major enough to make him notable solely on its own. Without something else, he's only WP:BLP1E. The stalking scandal does not seem to be widely reported in mainstream media, and we don't cite contentious BLP information to forums. Maybe if he wins a few more tourneys, he'll gain enough notoriety to fit in here. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Borderline notability, no reliable sources cited, and a history of poorly sourced negative information being added to this BLP. -- JN 466  16:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not DeleteI ask for some time to improve the article. I have just added a photo, several external links, several sources and a couple of lines of text. There are many poker players listed who have less accomplishments than Rijkenberg. While maybe in America winning the EPT Sanremo does not mean much, I assure you in Europe, and especially in Italy - it means a great deal. This is a major accomplishment. Not quite as big of a deal - but on par with - Jerry Yang winning the WSOP Main Event. Taking some cues from the Yang article I would be happy to include information about how Rijkenberg gained entry into the event, notable hands that he played along with subsequent events he has bought into since his win. Again I ask for some more time to make this is more complete article before it is deleted. Note that the term 'Constant Rijkenberg' currently gets 1,900 searches per month in Google. Steve Badger gets only 260 and Shirley Rosario gets the same and Steve Dannenmann gets only 170. The last example is somebody who didn't even win the main event, he simply got 2nd - I would argue Rijkenberg is far more notable in the poker world today than Dannenmann. DegenFarang (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article was used an attack page, citing a ridiculous source.  The article should be deleted and the history suppressed.  Creator has a history of vandalizing BLP articles including the John Roberts and Russ Hamilton article. 2005 (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article existed for many months with no derogatory information of any kind - it was only made into an 'attack page' very recently. A simple solution is to find a more credible source (which I think I have done, see Constant Rijkenberg or not include that information at all. Either way, he is still a notable person for winning one of the most prestigious tournaments on the EPT and thus, in the world. He is easily now among the top 5 most famous Dutch pro poker players. DegenFarang (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources were not up to the standard demanded by WP:NPF. -- JN 466  00:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Whatever, go ahead and delete it. I copied all of the content over to poker.wikia.com where there are MUCH MUCH less restrictions on what can be added to an article. Gets indexed in Google all the same so I could really care less about picking cat fights with all of you about it. Go ahead and shut down all of the poker pros' pages, just please notify me first so I can add them to poker.wikia first! DegenFarang (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please remain calm. People are seriously discussing the issue here and are bringing up valid points.  Getting emotionally attached to contributions is never a good idea as there is no ownership of what you contribute here. Rapier1 (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not Delete Let's give the article some time. I have just added several refs to it. His win has received wide coverage on multiple poker web sites. By the way the behavior of the creator of the article and speculation about what he may or may not do with it have no relevance in this discussion. The determining factor is notability as indicated by secondary sources.-- — Kbob • Talk  • 01:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree we should give it time. Anybody who voted delete previously should have a look at the article now, it is 10,000% better than when this consideration for deletion was initiated. A second note that has not been mentioned here is that the 2009 EPT Sanremo was the largest EPT event ever held in Europe - so it wasn't 'just another EPT event' if you are one of those who don't see the EPT as prestigious (which it clearly is). DegenFarang (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This person does not meet notability guidelines, as other than winning a single poker tournament he hasn't done anything else that could be considered notable. WP:BIO is fairly clear about what constitutes notability for people and this just doesn't rise to that standard. Rapier1 (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * According to WP:BIO "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The article now has citations from eight different secondary sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_Rijkenberg#ReferenceThe same sources used on many poker BLPs. It would seem to me enough to keep the article.-- — Kbob • Talk  • 03:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The references from coinflip.com, theplayr.com and dailyradar.com are all self-published sources which can never be used in wikipedia biography articles. They need to be removed regardless: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons,even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer". 2005 (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The EPT's prestigious, but he's only won one event and barely cashed in another. Most of the references are for that single win. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per BLP1E. It appears that this person is notable for one event, winning a poker game.  JBsupreme (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are many people who have articles who are notable for only 'winning a poker game' - in fact, many who are notable only for not winning a poker game, as in coming in 2nd or 3rd or 4th. DegenFarang (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -- and if that's all they're notable for (such as only coming in 4th in a Poker Tournament) then we probably should not have an article on them in the first place. But that's for another day.  JBsupreme (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * From WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes" - I absolutely used it correctly. I can't imagine a group of articles that can be analyzed for notability more objectively than that of tournament poker players. There results speak for themselves. If you vote to delete this article you are by proxy voting to delete at least 20 others. DegenFarang (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe that I probably would vote to delete twenty other less notable biographical articles if their sole claim to fame was winning less than first place in a poker tournament. JBsupreme (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to nit-pick but this article is about somebody who got first place. So using this logic you should be voting to delete articles about people whose sole claim to fame was winning a poker tournament. DegenFarang (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are parroting my initial comment in this thread, yes. :)  JBsupreme (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am, you backtracked when discussing deleting other people notable for only one event. As per BLP1E "...and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." Rijkenberg has not remained and is not likely to remain a low profile individual. Stories have continued to be written about him since his win until today, he is consistently interviewed by news organizations, discussed on forums and blogs etc. He is also currently traveling the poker tournament trail playing most major high-buy in tournaments, including the PCA that just happened in the Bahama's. He is a highly skilled and charismatic player - he will remain high-profile for some time to come and is likely to make future final tables and wins in major tournaments. Thus, BLP1E does not apply. DegenFarang (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain how you feel I backtracked? I've looked over my comments here and don't feel that I have, and apologize for any confusion I may have caused, but I'm not seeing how you could have possibly misinterpreted anything I've said here so far.  JBsupreme (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't a big deal and as I said I was nit picking. But you said this article should be deleted (he won the event). Then you said articles should be deleted if the only thing the person did was not win one tournament. That is not consistent with your vote for deletion of this article, he won the event, he didn't not win the event. Maybe backtracking was the wrong word but its not consistent. Consistency would have been if you said 'yes we should remove any article where somebody's only claim to fame is winning one tournament' DegenFarang (talk) 03:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant that in addition to what should happen to this article. Single event notability.  JBsupreme (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, would you like me to compile you a huge list of articles you can recommend for deletion then? DegenFarang (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, but I can't make an promises that I will get to them immediately. JBsupreme (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as above, non-notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayewalker (talk • contribs)
 * Delete - essentially a BLP1E. The only reliable sources are related to his winning of the EPT tournament; there are other sources relating to more recent controversies, but they're not reliable enough for BLP purposes. The question then is whether winning one of the EPT tournaments makes someone automatically notable, and looking at WP:ATHLETE, I think it does not. I note from the article European Poker Tour that there have been many winners of these tournaments - 10 others in that season alone - and we only have articles on about half of them, those who are notable for something else as well. Robofish (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per BLP1E and in line with most other !votes. Especially considering the other editors commenting here have no problem with placing a poker player under WP:ATHLETE (I agree with them), closing admin should note that it's persons accepting enough of this definition who are participating which implies people more familiar in these specific areas. Actually, the discussion of other EPT winners that have articles all having additional claims of notability almost makes a case for a 'Delete' on its own as it implies an unofficial consensus. With guideline concerns listed completely valid and any case for a keep long since during irrational and completely out of the scope of Wikipedia processes, I don't have anything to sway across. As for the proxy voting mentioned above in a panic, that's not for discussion here, but per WP:BEANS it's almost certain to be looked into after it's been brought up. Sorry. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BEANS is a WP:JOKE. According to that 'policy' it is wrong to point out that a bunch of other articles are violating the exact same thing this article evidently is, and none of them are being considered for deletion. By the arguments all of you are making, all articles who don't meet this criteria should not be on WIkipedia and thus I'd be a good editor for pointing it out, as it would be improving Wikipedia. I think I'm going to go find the right WP:PLACE to make a WP:SUGGESTION for a new WP:POLICY called WP:WIKINERD that says just because you have no WP:LIFE and spend all day reading every single WP:RULE and can cite and reference WP:ANYTHING to win any WP:ARGUMENT does not mean that you are thinking WP:RATIONALLY or that you are WP:CORRECT. It just means you enjoy proving other people WP:WRONG by citing arcane WP:BS.DegenFarang (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sweet looks like somebody has already done it. All of you 'delete' people, particularly those of you who know little or nothing about poker and the EPT, please see: WP:IGNOREALLRULES and WP:WIKILAWYERING - you just want to win the argument and you have no idea what you are talking about. You are WP:WRONG. Wikipedia has no firm rules. "Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit." "The following is policy on the English Wikipedia, and according to Jimbo Wales, it "always has been." Ignore all rules was Wikipedia's first rule to consider" - just because you can cite a bunch of WP:STUFF does not make you WP:RIGHT - this is not a competition to see who can argue better, it is about improving the encyclopedia. 10 times more people search for Constant Rijkenberg in Google every month than over half of the poker players on Wikipedia, clearly he is notable, I don't care what your WP:RULES say. They don't mean anything. DegenFarang (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the "final rule" of Wikipedia is consensus. What you believe to be right is only relevant insofar as your ability to convince the community at large that your argument has merit.  It seems obvious that the consensus here is for delete, and telling people they don't know what they are talking about isn't likely to change their minds.  If that is all you have to convince people with, then I don't think you have much chance of winning over the consensus. Rapier1 (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.