Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Graves (poker player)


 * 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 Keep -- JForget 01:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael Graves (poker player)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Very short article about a one-time poker winner; fails notability guidelines – Dream out loud (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC) notice given to wikiproject poker related to this afd
 * keep If he won a WSOP braclet, that is notable. He also claims 3/4 million in total winnings, which is more than I make in a few years, so that is notable (sorta).  You may be accidently underplaying the accomplishments.   Pharmboy (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The length of an article is completely irrelevant to an AfD discussion. Having won a WSOP bracelet is evidence of notability. Rray (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The length of an article is relevant if it fails to establish the subject's notability. – Dream out loud (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have won a WSOP braclet, you are automatically notable. It isn't like they give those away in boxes of Cracker Jacks.  Pharmboy (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The article plainly states his notability and even references it, so your comment really makes no sense. 2005 (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep This is a ridiculous nomination as the player has won a WSOP bracelet---the gold standard notability in the poker world. The player will forever be recognized in the poker world as a world champion.  Heck, this should be snowballed. Balloonman (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to say that this player isn't notable in real life, but this article doesn't meet notability guidelines by stating that the player is notable. The three-sentence long article gave me the impression that he won a single poker tournament.  If you want this article kept, it should be expanded with more references added, which elaborates on the player's notability. – Dream out loud  (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Articles don't meet notability guidelines. Subjects of articles do. Yes, the article should be expanded, but there is no time limit for when that has to take place. And being a stub isn't a valid deletion reason. The consensus here will decide whether or not the article will be kept, and the length of the article isn't a factor, since it's not a valid reason for deletion. Rray (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rray is 100% correct. The nom's reasoning only can lead to the conclusion that the article should be improved.  Needing improvement can not be used as a reason to delete.  Pharmboy (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If a person is notable in real life, doesn't it stand to reason that s/he is notable enough for an article?Balloonman (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. No valid reason given for nomination. (We don't delete stubs because they are stubs!) 2005 (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: When nominating an article for deletion for notability reasons, good faith and good practice is to do a minimal amount of research to make sure that the subject is really non-notable. -- Masterzora (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep clearly notable even if he doesn't accomplish anything else in the field of poker, Michael Graves was the winner at the 38th annual 2007 World Series of Poker (WSOP) in the $1,000 buy-in w/rebuys event (no-limit Texas hold'em), this alone makes him notable, which due to the growth of poker popularity (in magazines, the Internet primetime television coverage on a major sporting network (ESPN)) as well as many of their major poker events, particularly the WSOP, which has been widely regarded worldwide as the most notable of all Poker tournament series, for that reason Graves' 1st place prize of over $740,000 in the event he won exceeds the prize winnings of the ($10,000 buy-in) WSOP Main Event Champions in each of the years from 1970 to 1988, along with the cash he was also awarded a World Series of Poker bracelet something that few poker players have at all even quite a few season poker professionals. in general there are many notable so to speak one-hit wonders if that is all he turns out to be, I respectfully request that the nominator reconsider his nomination. ▪◦▪ ≡S i R E X≡  Talk 13:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nod... winning a single WSOP event is the equivalent to having a one hit wonder or winning a single golf/tennis Major or winning a single Oscar. If he never does another thing, he will still be notable in the poker realm.Balloonman (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep per several above. Greswik (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep See above, would it help if someone put the stub notice on it?--Tucson Indigo (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2008 (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.