Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray E. Bornert II


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Ray E. Bornert II

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Prod and prod2 tags removed by of article. Other than a small piece in Wired from several years back, no other coverage in reliable sources to indicate notability of subject. WinHoldEm has also been nominated for deletion.OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of notability. andy (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Notable Bornert is very notable in the online poker world since 2003-2004. Go here: forumserver.twoplustwo.com search for either 'Bornert' 'Ray Bornert' or 'Winholdem' ... keep in mind the current db does not include the archives before 2007 but you can do the same searches on the archive site.  In that world  Winholdem and Bornert are synonymous since 2004. --Riitoken (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Please read WP:Speedy_keep and WP:Reliable sources, as your comment suggests you are unfamiliar with both. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 01:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I should have used notable which was the point of the reply. --Riitoken (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Let's be clear here: you are Ray Bornert and have a significant conflict of interest in this article and this debate. WP:COI and WP:HONESTY indicate that you should declare this. andy (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no COI here. If you think any of my edits do not adhere to WP:NPOV then contest the edits but please do not falsely accuse me. --Riitoken (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. No useful Google News hits. Google search hits are all forums/wikis/social networks. Both from searching the article title and simpler "Ray Bornert". Lacks significant coverage from multiple, reliable sources. Massive COI/self-promotion issues as well. » scoops “ 5x5  „ 02:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, very little evidence of notability and lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. High likelihood of WP:COI. -- Kinu t /c  02:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Help I just got my ass handed to me in a bag in the Risk (clone) debate for not being able to find solid sources. I've read the sources in the Bornert article and it strikes me that there are 3 notable publishers of content that mention Bornert and/or his software - MSNBC, Wired magazine, The Mail on Sunday (large U.K. paper).  Help me understand why these do not qualify as valid sources that reference Bornert.  And don't just post some flippant WP:* ref.  please explain specifically why these sources (which were not written by Borner) are unacceptable for Wikipedia. --Riitoken (talk) 12:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For goodness sake stop it! You know full well what's wrong with these sources because it was explained at Articles for deletion/WinHoldEm in which you are a participant. These are the same sources as used in WinHoldEm and they have even less value in Ray E. Bornert II - only the Wired article is in any way a suitable source, the others, as you were told at the other afd "deal with the phenomenon of bots in general and give only trivial mentions to the article subject". You are already on a final warning for gaming the system and in particular your disruptive contributions to Articles for deletion/Risk (clone) so I strongly suggest you participate properly in this debate, if you have anything of value to say. andy (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Andy, chill dude. I'm just trying to learn here.  Is there a Wikipedia rule that demands that sources may only be used in a single article? yes/no?  I was not aware of any such rule.  Those 3 sources seemed entirely appropriate for the subject matter of all 3 articles.  All 3 sources mention Bornert so that seems perfectly fine in an article about him.  All 3 sources mention Winholdem and so that seems fine for an article about it.  All 3 sources deal with the subject of 'Computer Poker Players' and so that seems fine for an article with the title 'Computer Poker Players'.  So I ask you what exactly is your problem here dude?  And for the record, I am not the author of any of these 3 Wikipedia articles.  You've been riding me for the past week in the Risk (clone) debate.  STOP HARRASSING ME!! --Riitoken (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: First off, asking you to look at a link (such as WP:RS or WP:GNG) is not "flippant." These links discuss the appropriate guidelines in quite a bit of detail, far more detail than is appropriate to repeat in this AfD. What you're asking, in effect, is for us to retype the information found in those guidelines here to save you the trouble of clicking on those links.  That being said, WP:GNG is the General Notability Guideline, and what it says is that articles need multiple, independent, third-party, reliable sources which discuss the subject in "significant detail."  Mentioning a subject is not enough.  Quoting the subject in an article about something else entirely is not enough.  A sentence or two about where the guy went to school is not enough.   Ravenswing  14:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Only the Wired article discusses the subject at all, and not in particularly indepth detail; the degree to which it constitutes "significant detail" per WP:GNG is shaky. In any event, multiple such sources are required, and do not appear.  Strong evidence exists that Riitoken = Bornert, bringing WP:COI into the mix.   Ravenswing  14:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The Wired article is the only source of substance.  This is simply not enough. -- Whpq (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that the articles are primarily about pokerbots - specifically Winholdem. Bornert is a the necessary human element because a writer cannot interview a piece of software;  so yes the articles are not about Bornert specifically from a Biographical pov.  So maybe the citations do no belong in the Bornert living bio article.  But I'll be damned if they don't belong in both WinHoldEm and Computer_poker_players articles.  All I did was read the article to see if Bornert was mentioned.  I had assumed that was enough for the WP living bio. standards (maybe I was wrong).  I'm not a biographer;  I just thought the references would be useful to anybody that was. --Riitoken (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep V, N, RS --Katie Sweetmore (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the depth of the debate so far and your apparent lack of experience on wikipedia, don't you think that we need a bit more than "V, N, RS"? andy (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - This user appears to be reflexively voting "keep" in a variety AFD discussions. And I do mean "vote" instead of "!vote" as the user does nor provide any sort of rationale to support the vote. -- Whpq (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Am I correct in assuming that Katie's comment of "V, N, RS" refers to WP:V WP:N WP:RS ? I'm still learning the voting process (and abbreviations) but it looks like her vote is based her interpretation of those polices. Yes? No? --Riitoken (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, that'd be a good guess. It's considered poor form, though (however much we all do it from time to time) to merely quote a link; your view doesn't carry as much weight unless you explain, however tersely, what about that policy or guideline supports your position.   Ravenswing  22:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like a sockpuppet trying to make some kind of point. I've asked for someone to look into it. - MrOllie (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Already filed an SPI. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked as a sock of User:Elizabeth Steinberg. - MrOllie (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete lack of biographical sources. - MrOllie (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete not even close to passing the WP:GNG. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  22:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete -- notability for this particular person is not demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 06:20, 21 January 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.