Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Wolfe (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 delete Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Paul Wolfe (poker player)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable player, fails WP:N and WP:BIO –– Lid(Talk) 09:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete For a poker player with moderately large winnings, its strange the only reference to him is a single winnings tally site. Doesn't appear to be notable at present. Artene50 (talk) 10:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Paul Wolfe is a Full Tilt Pro, a sponsored professional on the site Full Tilt Poker a major online poker company doesn't sponsor just anyone. this is his profile▪◦▪ ≡S i R E X≡  Talk 10:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Full Tilt sponsors many professionals, and many of them simply aren't notable players apart from the fact that they are sponsored. Paul Wolfe seems to fall into this category with meager results and nothing to illustrate notability in his own performance. –– Lid(Talk) 10:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, the fact that a highly successful online poker company sponsors him does speak to his significance, it is not just a dime a dozen if you receive sponsorship from a top online site like FTP this does speaks to notability of the subject.▪◦▪ ≡S i R E X≡  Talk 10:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Greg Mascio, Dag Martin Mikkelsen, Alan Boston, Aaron Bartley, Stuart Paterson, Cole South, Lynette Chan, Jay Greenspan, Andrew Wiggins - All Full Tilt Pro's and every one of them doesn't have anything notable to their name. There are many other examples, but the result is that simply being sponsored does not mean they are a notable player in their own right. Notability derives, in poker, from significant results or coverage. Wolfe has neither. –– Lid(Talk) 11:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * All of them are notable due to the significants of their sponsorship and each merit articles, it is not the causal amateur that a top online poker site like Full Tilt Poker gives this type of status to out of the hundreds of thousands of players on or off-line.▪◦▪ ≡S i R E X≡  Talk 12:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * One of those listed have zero cashes to their name, another three have one cash each totalling thirty thousand lifetime, combined. In no poker article, ever, would that survive as a case for notability. The sponsorship is not a trump card of notability, the players themselves have to be notable. –– Lid(Talk) 12:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (de-indent)Not all poker are freeze out tournaments, so not all their sponsored players will have tournament results, while its true that high stake cash game players like Cole South won't get the type of publicity as a live tournament professional players there are other factor namely being a part of team cardrunners which is the official training service of full tilt poker, I've also notice that reports of high-states ring games are becoming more common, there was a recent mention due to a sizable lost to David Benyamine, after losing a single $132,000 pot.. anyway I do believe when a multi-million dollar company sponsors you it does speaks to a part of a persons significants after all these things are not done arbitrary by these companies.▪◦▪  ≡S i R E X≡  Talk 13:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Full Tilt Poker is a company the same as any other multi-million dollar company, and they have employees in this case poker players. Each employee is not notable simply for working inside the organisation. Now if that argument does not sway I'll try a closer one, sponsorship for race car drivers: some drivers are not notable and have not accomplished a significant amount on the circuit however they usually, always, have sponsorship deals. These deals do not make them notable, their performance on the track does. This can be extended to any sport, but the end result I keep coming to is that the person needs to be notable, not the larger body they are a part of. –– Lid(Talk) 13:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed... and there are numerous poker aspiring racecar drivers and or other professionals in different sports/competitions that aren't notable but rely on sponsorship. Sponsorship doesn't equate to current notability---it is often attaching one's company's name to a person in hopes that they become notable.  Plus, to establish notability, coverage needs to come from an independent source---separate from the sponsor's cite.  Using Full Tilt to establish the notability of a Full Tilt Pro, is NOT independent---it is a clear COI issue.Balloonman (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per Sirex. Rray (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Has not recieved significant coverage in secondary reliable sources, thus failing to meet the notability standard of WP:BIO. Ghits of Paul Wolfe all seem to refer to other people with the same name. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 23:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * a refined news search give hits, here is one from pokernews ▪◦▪ ≡S i R E X≡  Talk 02:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That is one, and there are two other small profiles on him, so a case can be made for a keep, but it's very marginal. Given his stature for those articles revolves around tournament poker, and that he has not made a final table in four years, I'd say that would tilt the marginaliness to delete rather than keep. 2005 (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd also say that a single interview that doesn't claim any real notability of the candidate is no more notable than somebody interviewing a random poker player at the WSOP.Balloonman (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Maybe a tree has fallen in the poker forest, but nobody heard it. From his winnings and the lack of claims, apparently he hasn't won a major tournament. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't meet bio notability requirments, very little tertiary comments even.  Also, and importantly, being a Full Tilt pro (or sponsored by any cardroom) is not a WP:POKER criteria for an article. 2005 (talk) 09:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This AfD has been announced to Wikiproject Poker
 * Delete does not meet notability by a mile. For those who believe that his mere participation in a tournament establishes notability, please pay attention to the footnote that was added: 8. 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.  Also, while not an official policy/guideline, the Wikiproject Poker has addressed the issue of people who are notable on an individual poker site, per the project, On-line poker players must be able to establish notability independent of the poker sites they play on and sites that simply track online results.  This would go for the individuals that are sponsored by the sites as well.  Having a sponsor does not equate to notability.  There are plenty of aspiring racecar drivers who have 'sponsors' but are not notable. Balloonman (talk) 17:15, 26 May 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.