Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Rapp


 * 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. Some daft arguments on both side, if you don't mind me saying so. Sources from other languages are perfectly permissable, but WP:NOTPAPER specifically states that "This policy is not a free pass for inclusion...". The arguments for retention ultimately failed to demonstrate the significance of the coverage required by the general notability guideline, so this discussion tends to deletion. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Stefan Rapp

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

Delete BLP that has no reliable sources, and the best that can be said about the person is that he came in third place or worse than that in some poker tournaments (assuming the sources can even be trusted on that point). That's nothing at all like enough notability to have a Wikipedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - although he doesn't seem to be a particularly important poker player, he very easily passes general notability guidelines with extensive coverage in (non-English) reliable sources: see news search --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the English encyclopedia. Coverage is in other languages is not relevant. He may qualify for a German article, but that is not an issue here.  2005 (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The language of coverage is irrelevant. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it is. This is not a Swahili encyclopedia.  He could be very famous in his hometown in Austria with the local paper covering his actions, but there are no verifiable English sources about this person. (And to state the obvious, most of those non-English links are about other people with his name, not him.) 2005 (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the English Wikipedia which means we write in English. Please show me the policy that sources must be in English because there are tens of thousands of articles violating this (non-existent) policy.  Also, you are wrong about "most of those non-English links being about other people."  At least 81/147 are about him because they also match on "poker".  Considering that Mr. Rapp isn't an American it is not all surprising that many of the sources aren't in English. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:VUE. Non-english sources can be used, but the point of sourcing is "so that readers can easily verify the content of the article".  The burden of reliability, and translation of what is stated on the page, is on the editor adding such.  Just waving your arms at a bunch of archive news articles that are mostly either not about him, or not reliable sources, or not primarily focused on him just increases the lack of notability about the subject.  If an editor familr with the various languages cites material, then others, even unfamiliar with the laguage, can evaluate whether it is reliable and an accurate tranlastion, etc.  At this point there are zero indepedant sources in the article, zero English current news articles, zero independant sources in the top 100 of a google search, and zero non-English sources in the article.  That's a lot of zeroes.  If you think there are substantial, verifiable, independant sources exclusively devoted to the person, then add them and we would not be here.  At this point, zero is zero.  Among those 81, it appears one is in a reliable source talking about the person. The rest cover an event or just list him in a group of players. And what that one German Poker News article says is, well, until someone says what it says, and puts it in the article, how is anyone to know that it isn't talking about what he had for lunch that day. 2005 (talk) 02:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence of notability. Incidental news sources from google appear to be standard coverage of tournaments. --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, what else would you expect news articles about a poker player to be about? --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They are not "about" the player. He has zero articles in Google News about him now, and also zero in the first 100 normal Google search results, except for the single article from the online cardroom sponsoring him.  2005 (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: to say he has finished "came in third place or worse" (maybe) is very misleading and false. First of all, any individual tournament has a huge luck factor.  The very best player in the entire world will come in "third or worse" 95%+ of the time in a tournament of any size.  Second, he won the CAPT Veldon - a $125K tournament (this can be attested by multiple RS).  Third, this much mentioned third place just happens to an event considered to be the European championship.  A full list of significant finishes can be found at: http://www.pokerpages.com/players/profiles/50771/stefan-rapp.htm  Now is Rapp the most important or well-known player ever?  Certainly not, but I think there is more than sufficient coverage and accomplishment for an article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And according to the page that you linked to, based upon his first place finish in the Velden, that propelled Rapp to the prestigious position of being ranked as 993rd top player on the poker pages professional rankings---993rd. That combined with the fact that there are no real meaningful coverage, with one exception, everything is about the tournament, not about the player.  993rd place... which is probably the highest he's ever been ranked.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I added a prod, and no third party sources have been added.  He does not meet the Wiki Poker project's criteria for an article, and also fails WP:N. He gets no coverage except in passing mention.  The article can be recreated if he ever does get significant coverage in third party sources. 2005 (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep he passes general notability guidelines as evidenced by independent and reliable coverage in sources as demonstrated by ThaddeusB. Varbas (talk) 04:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, which ones? Name three specifically.  How about two?  2005 (talk) 06:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Short list of coverage I went through the first 10-15 news stories and translated them and it is pretty clear there is "significant coverage" in "multiple reliable sources." This is just form the first couple pages, so there is definitely more like this out there. I am sure 2005 will write these off as "standard tournament coverage," but a news article doesn't have to be a bio to qualify as coverage. To say coverage of a poker player playing poker is worthless is like saying articles about an artist's art work don't count or article's about a scientist's break through discovery don't count because they aren't about the artist/scientist but rather his/her work. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Bio@pokernews rough translation:
 * I imagine this is the one source 2005 considers legit
 * 1) article about his win at CAPT Velden rough translation:
 * No other player is even mentioned
 * 1) article about tourney where the goal is to knock hum + 1 other pro out rough translation:
 * Having a tourney dedicated to beating you seems pretty notable to me (note: this was not an online event, which are common, but rather at a brick-and-mortar casino)
 * 1) article about CAPT Baden where he gets non-trivial coverage rough translation:
 * 2) more extensive coverage of "first European championship" (the CAPT Baden) rough translation:
 * Insignificant events don't get coverage like this - scroll through the pages and you will see Rapp mentioned many times
 * I have added a couple of these 3rd party sources to the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * None of the sources you added meet the criteria of WP:N. Of those you mention above, only the Poker News article meets the criteria.  The article about him winning a tournament would be a valid source, but not to establish notability, as it is WP:1E -- coverage about the event itself, not the interchangeable winner. Every poker tournament gets some coverage.  Every poker player player has results/stats pages on several websites.  The person likely will merit an article someday, having one other article like the Poker News one isn't much of a threshold, but at this point the sources are not there. 2005 (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that your interpretation of policy is correct... I will leave it to the community to determine who is correct. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The CAPT Velden is a non-notable tournament. 1) Winning it does not in any way convey notability to the person.  The reference cited by Thaddeus is not significant nor is it about him, it is a mere press release announcing the winner of a non-notable tournament (poker websites carry tons of these short briefs an 95% of them are not-notable and consist of the persons entire claim to fame.  For the most part winning a single tournament does not make a person notable, this is true in most competitions with open events.  While there are some events, where the winner is instantly notable, CAPT Velden is not one.  This is true in ALL competitive venues and sports.  Winning the Kentucky Derby makes one notable, winning a race at the Sam Houston Raceway does not.  Winning at Wimbledon makes a tennis player notable, winning a state title does not.  2) Thaddeus also points to a tournament where the goal is to knock Rapp and another pro out of the tournament.  Thaddeus then notes this was not an online event, which are common, but rather at a brick-and-mortar casino.  The tournament was a publicity stunt for Full Tilt Poker Pro---it was sponsored by Full Tilt Poker and marketted as such.  It was not marketted as "come play Stefan Rapp," but rather "knock out a Full Tilt Poker Pro" it could have been any of Full Tilt Poker's employees.  In other words, the only difference between it and many of the online tournaments of the same type is that Full Tilt Poker got a casino to host it!  Again, the coverage there is nominal not significant in coverage and more of a press release relating to the tournament than the incidental coverage of Rapp.  3) Trivial mentions such as these are common on poker cites, but do not make the person notable.  4) As for hand-by-hand or play by play coverage of various tournaments, Thaddeus makes a statement that is not true, "Insignificant events don't get coverage like this."  Are you kidding me?  Plenty of non-notable events get coverage like this all the time in many walks of life.  But let's assume for a moment that this tournament is marginally notable---and let's go one step further and say that a case MIGHT be made that this tournament is worthy of a wikipedia article.  The fact that the tournament MIGHT qualify does not impart notability to a tournament winner---notability is not inherented.  Thaddeus then argues, "scroll through the pages and you will see Rapp mentioned many times" yes, you do, but that's because this is a play by play accounting of the events---it is coverage of the event.  This is not significant coverage about Rapp, but rather about the tournament.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I don't think any one of these sources gives him notability by itself, but considered together there is enough coverage out there to meet the GNG. There is no one "smoking gun" that gives him automatic notability, just several small items considered together.
 * Additionally, Full Tilt (a major poker company) obviously picked him for some reason, not just because he was some random poker player... and they did so before he won the Valden & finished 3rd at the Baden. (Again, this by itself is not an argument for keep but considered with the sources adds a tiny bit more weight.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * With the exception of the bio, NONE of these articles are about Rapp, and in every case the coverage of Rapp is incidental. Are you proposing that every person who is covered in a play by play of an open buy in tournament is notable even if they have never been seen before?  As for Full Tilt.  Full Tilt has over 120 poker pros on its site. The other major poker sites have a similar number, and even the smaller sites have scores of "pros."  So, in reality, being a poker pro simply means that you are one of about 500+ people the various poker sites have "signed" to be a poker pro.  So what does it take to be a poker pro on a website?  Well, the websites want to be able to claim the winners of the major tournaments (WSOP/EPT/WPT/Aussie Millions/etc) as part of their team.  To this end, they try to sign as many "pros" as they can.  The websites have agents at each of these tournaments who will sign any player they think has a chance of winning these events.  Any player who makes the final table, leads in the chip count at the end of the day, or has caught the attention of the scouts will be signed by somebody.  It doesn't matter if they are playing in their first tournament or playing the game of their lives, all it takes is one decent showing and they will get offers.  Rapp did so in 2004 at the EPT in Barcelona where he won 9K euro in a 1K euro event.  The similar guideline is used by many poker sites when writing bios.  Of course, those poker sites have a narrower focus than WP and their notability requirements are not on par with WP's.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose that technically they aren't about him, but then again an article saying Helio Castroneves won the Indy 500 yesterday isn't technically about him. To me, an article describing who won a tournament is certainly not "trivial coverage" of the person who won said event.  Articles that aren't biographies can still be used to establish notability.
 * Additionally, you seem to be saying that there is no way 500 "poker pros" can all be notable. I agree that not every person signed as a pro is notable, however, the general idea that there couldn't possibly be 500 notable players is laughable.  500 is a very small number compared to most topics of a similar level of interest to the general public.
 * Finally, Wikipedia's guidelines are not very tight at all - all a person has to do is receive non-trivial coverage from "multiple" reliable source. Rapp may only have one RS writing a biography about him, but certainly he has received what I would call non-trivial coverage in more than 2 sources.  Do I think he is notable in that he has contributed something significant to society? Certainly not. Do I think he has meet Wikipedia's definition of notable? Certainly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But we are not talking about who won the Indianapolis 500 of Poker, we aren't even talking about the Denver Grand Prix, we are talking about a tournament several levels below that. To put this on par with sports, imagine a minor league sporting competition.  The competition MIGHT be notable, but the person who wins the event would not be.  The competition might release a press release and various trade magazines/websites covering that sport might publish the press release, but doing so does not make the person covered notable.  For example, every month there are Martial Arts Tournaments around the country.  There might be a few tournaments where the winner of the tournament is, by virtue of the prestige of the event, notable.  Then there will be a decent number of tournaments that might be notable enough to warrant a wikipedia article, but are not that notable.  The results of the various events at these tournaments might be covered in a martial arts magazine or website, but only because the article is covering the tournament, not because any particular player is notable. The CAPT is this type of tournament.  None of the events that he has participated in make this guy notable.  As for the notion that there "couldn't possibly be 500 notable players is laughable."  I've not made that claim, but the mere fact that a website signed the person does not make them notable.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't feel any one source here makes Rapp automatically notable - it is the combination of the sources that does it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The coverage of this player is more than incidental as the sources include a personal profile which demonstrates notability. The language of the sources is unimportant. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:N as it states such a profile must be independant of the subject. Obviously that is not the case of a profile either on his own site or that of the company he works for! 2005 (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure Colonel Warden was referring the to pokernews bio mentioned above. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, as that isn't being used as a source! If that single source was added, obviously the article would then have one independant source.  Then the issue would be if exactly one non-english independant source establishes notability.  The guideline says no, as it says "sources".  If when one more appears someday, the dude could conceivably have an article if editors think the bare minimum plural of two is enough.  2005 (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * With all do respect, you are just playing semantic games now. AfD generally judges articles based on their potential, not their current state.  A source doesn't have to have been actually used to make it a valid indication of notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh please, you made the claim that he meant what he didn't say. He said sources.  This person does not have the reliable sources to merit an article.  Period.  The fact that you don't simply admit that now is pretty strange. 2005 (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would I "admit" what I don't believe to true? And yes, the word "source" does NOT imply "a referenced source currently used in the article." --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, User:ThaddeusB understands my comment correctly. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - From the above discussion, I believe that he meets the GNG. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So the 993rd best poker pro is notable enough for an article? This basically will open the doors to every non-notable one time wonder who has made any final table in a major tournament!  He won one semi-respectable tournament... but one that nobody really cares about.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:NOTPAPER. Varbas (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That rating is almost completely meaningless. I am sure if Rapp was ranked 50th you'd be saying so yourself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yuval Bronshtein was a lot more notable, and his article was deleted, so no consensus here doesn't mean a bunch more junk like this can be created. It just means the AFD process is goofy. 2005 (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually,I would put Stefan ahead of Yuval. Yuval's only claim to any notoriety was 3 online tournaments, and winning two back to back.  At least Stefan has won a tournament that is monitored by poker cites.  It still is not a major tournament, but it is listed.  FTOPS is not, so Yuval is purely a BIO1E.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:00, 28 May 2009 (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.