Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Padraig Parkinson


 * 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   no consensus.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 13:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Padraig Parkinson

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Poker player with some nominal success. Biggest claim to fame is a 1999 3rd place finish at the WSOP main event and having won a television series event which is not very significant. --- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Notified WP:Poker--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete I think he's on the border of notability. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nod, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that somebody could come in and salvage this article. As is, I don't think he quite makes it.  3rd place in the WSOP today would get my attention, but in 1999 it wasn't nearly the same thing.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, just short of speedy keep. The article's external links have two reliable source interviews of him, including one in three parts.  His third place in 1999 is ireelevant to notability.  What matters is independant coverage in third party reliable sources.  He has it, though obviously the article could be improved with refs. 2005 (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thousands of poker players have short bio's written up on them. That is not an indication of notability, it is one of existence.  The two interviews do give some credence, but I'd still want more.  Interviews are not all that uncommon---speciality presses are often looking for "news".  If there are actual articles about him, then I'd more than willingly withdraw.  There is just too much crap to find articles about him.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The fellow writes for Cardplayer, is quoted as an expert in mainstream coverage, has a lot of interviews, profiles and news stories about tournament wins. There is so "much crap" because he is notable, not because he is not. 2005 (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Per WP:BEFORE. Google News Archives have plenty of good coverage: . Joal Beal (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I gotta go delete on this one... Yeah, he's earned a lot of money playing poker, but there's been no major championship wins that I see. Borderline... but we're not a poker almanac.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My problem with a lot of these poker articles is that they are of people who are less meaningful than local politicians. Local politicians/radio/tv personalities may have some coverage, but outside of the poker world they are non-entities---even within the poker world, their notability is nominal at best.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment While I agree with you, and I believe the article should be deleted, I would caution that "not meaningful" does not necessarily translate into "not notable" -- Something with meaning implies that individuals place value on it, and that drags in point-of-view.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep while a respect the Nominator I must disagree with this choice, Padraig Parkinson is the 3rd most tournament poker winner in all of Ireland with over $1.5 million in earnings, his 3rd place finish at the 1999 Main Event isn't his only success in poker not to mention that he is the author of Paddy's Corner @ Cardplayer this is his latest article from this month  and is a writer and sponsored pro @ Boylepoker . ▪◦▪  ≡S i R E X≡  Talk 06:41, 12 May 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.