Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Bonomo


 * 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 One "keep" vote is disqualified: new. For those who believe the person is notable: the article may be recreated if reputable sources will be provided that demonstrate person's notoriety. `'mikka (t) 19:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Justin Bonomo
Non-notable, unsourced, non-WP:BLP compliant, vandalized with trivia... the article has just about every reason that it should not be an article. 2005 20:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no google news hits. Fails WP:V. Recury 20:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would there be Google News hits? Justin being outed for cheating happened a while ago, and Google News only returns recent articles. There are still plenty of news articles and other sources which provide verifiability.  Quill E. Coyote 09:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Searching for his name brings up plenty of imformation about the guy, even one from BusinessWeek. Almost every poker site out there has a mention of him having been charged with cheating, the guy even admits it. That fact that it gets vandalized is not a reason for deletion. DrunkenSmurf 20:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The business week link mentions only that he plays online, something 200,000 people will do today. Two years before his cheating incident he just happened to be mentioned in the article, not because he was "somebody". Being caught cheating in poker is something that will happen to a few dozen people today. Being public about being caught does not suddenly make this run of the mill activity notable.  If it did, the article should be one sentence about his cheating, with a reference to where he allegedly admits it.  Not one other aspect of this person merits mention in an article. 2005 21:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree, the business week quote is merely an accident. Cheating is hardly notable, even if admitting it it is. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 21:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Some people don't seem to realize just how big a story this was in the poker world. Justin was widely regarded as one of the best online poker plays in the world, and so his getting outed for cheating was a major event.  It was published in many poker news sources, and garnered one of the largest threads ever in Two_Plus_Two_Publishing's forums.  It might not have been notable to most Wikipedians, but it certainly was notable to poker.  If there are problems with vandalism and sources, fix them, but not with  .  Quill E. Coyote 09:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Calling it a big story is a major exaggeration. Sure, the teenagers on some forums obsessed over it, but the reality is that it was just common cheating.  Regardless of how big or little that incident was though, he has no WP:BLP compliant notability. 2005 09:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:BLP? It mentions notability several times, but I don't see where it suggests Justin isn't notable enough to have a Wikipedia article.  The first mention says that we can use an article's subject as a source.  All this means is that we can use Justin's website for information on his notable cheating and success at poker.  The second mention talks about using public records such as court filings as sources, and since none are used in this article, I don't see how that relates.  The third says that we must show restraint in what sources we use and what information we publish about non-public figures.  We meet that standard, and whether or not Justin is a public figure is questionable, since he has attempted to create and market the 'Zeejustin' brand.  The third mention talks about dates of birth, but we don't include Justin's birthdate, even though it's fairly well known.  The fourth talks about malicious editing.  I'm not familiar enough with this article's history to know if it's been edited maliciously, but if there was, there are better ways to deal with it than deleting the article.  The fourth mention talks about using critics as sources, but I don't think we used any for this article.  What is there in WP:BLP that suggests we shouldn't have an article about Justin?
 * I'm not sure why the age of the people who cared about this matters. Should we delete Teletubbies and Pokemon?  Most of the people who care about those things are probably even younger than those who care about poker.  If it helps, most of the people who care about this were probably out of their teenage years, since playing poker online and in most cardrooms is restricted to people above a certain age. Quill E. Coyote 09:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep We have even shorter articles of even less notable television soap opera actors. This article has the potential to be a great source of facts. Vivelequebeclibre 04:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * delete. No reputable verification provided. `'mikka (t) 19:27, 16 August 2006 (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.