Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John "Johnny Quads" Wenzel


 * 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. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 00:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

John "Johnny Quads" Wenzel

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article reads like an essay, and the references are not convincing. Some are not third-person, some are books written by the subject, and the others are mostly news bits quoting Wenzel in his employment capacity. Doesn't seem to satisfy the GNG. MacMedtalk stalk 16:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment for now "Reads like an essay" doesn't bother me (if it's poorly written we can fix it). Quality of evidence of notability is more the issue. Tentatively there seems to be a fair bit of evidence the subject could be appropriate to cover - even in the tabloid world his role was not insignificant, also a tournament poker player, also an editor (and possibly from the write-up founder) of a poker magazine, also an author. I'd like to see a careful review of the evidence of notability and quality of coverage but for now I'm keeping an open mind both ways. It wouldn't be the first time we've had notability badly written up, nor the first time we've had non-notability covered by "puff" and promotionalism. A careful look at the sources and their significance is crucial as this could be clearly or borderline either way right now. Hopefully cleanup on the tone and style will help others here to better examine the concerns. FT2 (Talk 16:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * From the Writer This is Mary Fletcher. The entry on John Wenzel was a project of mine. I am a research librarian. I have noticed in recent years that books on poker have been among our most requested and used materials. Poker has become a significant cultural phenomenon in the last decade and is now mainstream. Mr. Wenzel is the editor-in-chief of respected poker magazines in the U.S., Canada and Europe. There is no other editor who supervises more than one magazine. As such, Mr. Wenzel is one of the most powerful men in poker, a pasttime and vocation that is still showing major growth worldwide. He is a well-known individual, and his editorials are respected in the poker world. He is often interviewed on the radio, and his books were published by a major publishing house and have all had multiple printings. This is not conjecture or puff. This is fact. This is one reason i chose him for inclusion. I believe there are 18 sources for this article, and they are credible. This is far more than most Wiki entries that i have seen. For example, thehendonmob.com and pokerpages.com are considered very reputable third-party poker-related sites, and these are two of the 18 sources i used. I tried to make the entry as interesting as possible, as he is quite an interesting character, as are many poker players. I hope i succeeded and it was not as dry as most entries i have seen; however, nothing was made up and i did not engage in hyperbole. I see that some of the attributions may now be dated or not working. I will try to find out how to update these so they will link to the proper sourcing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fletcherml (talk • contribs) 18:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete There are numerous problems with this article, of which the main ones are lack of sufficient reliable neutral sources, which is fatal to a Wikipedia article on anybody, and (failing that) notability. The article is about a professional poker player, poker magazine chief editor, poker author, and past journalist/editor. Arguably he may have a high enough profile in the poker world or elsewhere to support an article. I have considered whether this is a "notable but poorly written" biography (a common problem). However before keeping, there must be sufficient high quality independent sources to demonstrate notability and also sufficient high quality independent sources to write a balanced high quality neutral article . Without those, no article can exist.  The necessary kinds of sources or evidence are not visible online&mdash;or anywhere else I can find. I have examined Google / news / books / scholar, and also checked all cites in the article (analyzed below), none are good evidence to support an article. There are other concerns too - primarily that the article contains numerous BLP worries such as negative or positive sounding claims and I can't see any signs of being able to verify these from independent high quality sources either. For this reason I cannot really clean up the article while it's at AFD, and have stubbed it in line with our BLP policy. The lack of reliable coverage means we only have sources for a stub at best, and the lack of sources suggests that notability isn't achieved either and we should probably delete it at this time.  Even if high quality sources exist, then there's a concern over notability:  The subject appears to be a consistently profitable poker player (on a modest scale of a few thousands or a couple of times tens of thousands of dollars annually per websites which I can't judge) and his online poker player profiles state this is "rare". If these statements were untrue then he would probably be discredited. So he may be unusual or noted in the poker world for this. But non-evidence is fatal to this line of inquiry.The subject is editor in chief of "Poker Pro" publications. This is an employed role so he isn't also the founder. By itself this would not make him notable but it's "a string to the bow".The subject is an author on poker books. There are many poker books, we have no evidence that these particular books gained special notice or are other than routine books on a popular topic.  Taken together is there evidence of notability? How much attention does a poker player need before they are considered "notable"? Is poker-world attention enough or should we expect significant external attention too? I can't judge these but they are also an issue.


 * thehendonmob (website) - sole source is his own profile, not reliable for Wikipedia purposes. Shows modest career winnings in a number of years.
 * "Eat Professional Poker Players Alive" (Frank Wiese, 2009) - unable to check what if anything this says
 * "The Everything Poker Strategy Book" (2004) - subject is an author, not reliable independent evidence
 * University of Wisconsin-Madison, student records and yearbook - unclear what this shows, not viewable anyway
 * "The Everything Hold’em Book" (2006) - subject is an author, not reliable independent evidence
 * www.PokerPages.com (website) - user profile. Text also suggests self-writen. Unlikely to be a reliable independent source. Site search doesn't show more
 * Palm Beach Kennel Club poker room manager - not specific what this is supposed to show - no idea what this is
 * Audit Bureau of Circulation - not salient to Wenzel as an individual
 * www.pokerpromagazine.com - not independent (subject is its editor in chief)
 * Cherokee Casino in Tulsa - not clear what its relevance is
 * Bnet Business Network (2006) - sole reliable independent coverage I can find of him - but only a short summary and more telling, on the occasion of being appointed editor-in-chief to Poker Pro magazine. Gives some background. A quoted comment is from his new employer hence not independent.
 * Poker Pro Magazine staff - not independent (subject is its editor in chief)
 * Letters & Science Today magazine, 2007 - unclear what this shows, not viewable anyway
 * The Wisconsin Journalist, 2007 - unclear what this shows, not viewable anyway
 * PokerProEurope.co.uk - employer's website where he is editor in chief
 * Urban Dictionary - not evidence of anything for our purposes
 * Wenzel does charity work with other big-name pros - list of names in a charity game, not salient
 * Wenzel at World Poker Tour’s Champions Boot Camp in Las Vegas - published by employer where he is editor in chief
 * Wenzel at the Aruba Poker Classic - employer's website where he is editor in chief
 * Wenzel poker editorial quoted - forum, not a reliable source for anything.
 * Wenzel involved with launch of Poker Pro Europe magazine - press release by employer on launch of new magazine, not evidence salient to the subject
 * Online Poker Pro Scandinavia partners with Poker Channel, Wenzel quoted - press release by employer on launch of new magazine, not evidence salient to the subject
 * Poker Pro Europe expands distribution, Wenzel described - dead domain, also appears to be press release by employer on launch of new magazine, not evidence salient to the subject
 * Poker Author Challenge - flier for poker competition, not evidence of anything salient to article.
 * book review - short review of a poker book by the subject, doesn't add to evidence for our purposes
 * Wenzel mentioned on business wire - dead or inaccessible domain
 * book review - short review of a poker book by the subject, doesn't add to evidence for our purposes

In summary, of all these, just one item is verifiable salient coverage&mdash;and that is brief coverage on BusinessWire related to a specific event, his appointment as editor in chief of a magazine.


 * FT2 (Talk 22:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Per FT2, it doesn't appear that he meets our notability guidelines. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2011 (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.