Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefano Pelinga


 * 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. article and WP:RS improved - after improvements editors reassessed vote comments to keep - consensus to keep - (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Stefano Pelinga

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Of only marginal notability. There are secondary sources that report on his trick shot titles in Italy and his playing at entertainment venues (like Vegas), but I don't think the coverage is sufficient to establish notability. Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - only trivial passing coverage - best source is a short Modesto Bee article which is really a glorified event announcement, but even if it counted, it's only one source. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment After looking at the history of revisions, I think the subject is notable, however the lack of inline RS references is unfortunate.Fasttimes68 (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Possibly notable but without sources to verify it has to go. – ukexpat (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Revising to keep now that additional sources have been provided. – ukexpat (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete until reliable sources are written and published. Binksternet (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I took another look at sources following the edit warring by Bbb23 and SMcCandlish, and I still think that Pelinga is not adequately described by independent sources. In multiple news sources he is mentioned in passing as Italy's top trick shot artist, but in none of them is he given significant coverage such as details of his life or the voicing of his thoughts. The subject does not satisfy WP:GNG if there is no "significant coverage". Binksternet (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Restoring material including sources deleted out-of-process, and then adding sources to the article to support that material and the article's notability more generally is not editwarring. It's normal procedure. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 22:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * After seeing that trick shooting is considered a sport by its organizing body, I change my vote to Keep. With trick shots a sport the WP:ATHLETE guideline applies—a much lower bar than WP:GNG—and Pelinga easily qualifies under the more lax requirement. Binksternet (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How would he not qualify under WP:GNG anyways with sources like this, this, this, and this? Silver  seren C 17:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Current article does not even assert any claims that would make him notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. Considering that WalMart sells a set of billiard cues with his name on it, and a number of his instructional DVDs exist, he could possibly be notable, but a quick search on Google didn't turn anything up that would come close to demonstrating it.  DreamGuy (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article certainly did assert notability claims. The nominator deleted them and all the then-present sources right before nominating the article for deletion. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 22:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Obvious keep and clean up. Pelinga is one of the top billiards players in the world in his discipline.  The article was unfairly stripped to the bone by the nominator just before the nomination.  I have restored to it to the text it had before that (and after I removed blatantly spammy/self-promotional material from it).  It does in fact cite a large number of sources, it just does so vaguely and incompletely.  I've also restored all the  and other tags I put in there indicating places where it needs specific sourcing.  And it does have problems.  However, inline citations are not required for a stub to be kept, only for promotion to status such as Good Article.  Someone or other from WP:CUE will eventually improve this article markedly (I'd put good money on it being me or Armbrust, but I'm busy IRL right now).  This nomination should be speedily closed as out-of-process, and the nominator admonished against stripping articles of sources and other material in an attempt to make them look more deletion-worthy. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 00:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I wasn't going to comment on your accusations until I saw you restore the article to its previous poorly sourced state, replete with citation tags, self-published sources, and other garbage. I've reverted your edit but will not engage in an edit war with you over it. My one reversion and this comment will have to suffice and will permit other editors to track the history and make up their own minds.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: And I've put it back. It's woefully inappropriate for you to delete cited paper sources, even if the citations are not formatted and not inline. If you wish to improve the text of the article and object to some particular passage, improve it, but deleting over a dozen sources from an article, then deleting over 90% of its content (most of which probably can be sourced to the cited works, with effort), and then listing it for deletion after you've intentionally removed all sources and hints of notability, is a gross abuse of process. While the article has some self-sourcing issues, obviously, WP:SPS does not call for deletion of most or all of the article, especially when other sources are cited (albeit poorly).  Rather than spend lots of energy trying to delete an article with clearly established notability (Billiards Digest, cited three times, is one of the three most important, long-running and editorially independent English-language cue sports publications, just for starters), try expending the same effort adding a reliable source or two. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 14:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Update: With under 30 minutes effort, I've added 5 sources, all published by the International Artistic Poolplayers Association, the main sports governing body of Pelinga's discipline. I.e., just looking for half an hour at  relevant site, I've already found 5 sources for Pelinga's notability as a world champion. They are cited properly and inline, in addition to the 12 or so paper sources already present in the article. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 16:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears you are following WP:ATHLETE for your notability guide, such that taking part in a top tournament is good enough to establish a biography. I would argue that trick shots in billiards is not an athletic endeavor but rather an entertainment form. Perhaps we should be looking at WP:ENTERTAINER, the same place that professional wrestlers and magicians are judged notable. Has Pelinga reshaped the 'sport' of trick shots? Has he created an innovation? Can you demonstrate that Pelinga has a large fan base? Binksternet (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment, the World Pool-Billiard Association (WPA), the International Olympic Committee-recognized sports governing body of all cue sports (other than snooker), disagrees with you, since they have an Artistic Pool Division (the WPA-APD) and hold an annual world championship in the discipline, one of the most demanding in all of cue sports. See cited sources for proof that these are international tournaments, not goof-off entertainment events.  See for example images of Pelinga holding US$30,000 1st place checks (cheques).  WP:ATHLETE absolutely applies.  It's called "cue sports" not "cue games" or "cue acting" or whatever, for a reason.  Regardless, the General Notability Guideline (GNG) of WP:NOTABILITY has already been satisfied, so this "issue" is moot. The article now cites (fully and properly) 15 independent, reliable, non-trivial sources, in addition to 11 print citations that need further research and citation improvement. Just for kicks, though: Pelinga has in fact invented various trick shots that are now part of the Artistic Pool Programme, and to the extent that pool players attract a fan base Pelinga seems to have one, since he's appeared on the cover of Billiards Digest (May 2010) and other major pool mags as the featured player, and has been tapped by BD (same issue) to write trick shot how-to's. BD is actually extremely selective when it come to who is allowed to write instructional materials (the #1 most-read kind of article in that mag and its competitors).  So, WP:ENTERTAINER is probably actually satisfied, inapplicable as it may be.  Pro wrestlers are counted as entertainers not sports figures because pro wrestling is fake - the rivalries are fictional and the outcomes are predetermined and acted out.  Stage magic and artistic pool are similar only in that the uninitiated find them amazing. Stage magic is random tricks put forth by each practitioner as a form of entertainment. Artistic pool, like figure skating, decathlon, and various other sporting disciplines, has a published program of named, specified-in-detail tasks that must be performed. (Most people don't know that about figure skating - they only see the televised free-form ice dancing routines, and don't know about all the boring stuff like doing backwards figure-8s, etc., that has to be done, too - such stuff is the "figure" in "figure skating"). PS: The Billiard Congress of America (BCA, the WPA branch for the U.S.) lists artistic pool titles right along with championships in nine-ball, straight pool, three-cushion billiards, snooker, etc.  The BCA rulebook on this matter is also cited in the article now. Maintaining that artistic pool isn't really a sport would amount to a WP:IDONTKNOWIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. The cue sports world certainly knows and likes it, and classifies it as an internationally competitive sport including at the professional level. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 02:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Update: Between me and User:Silver seren, there are 15 proper sources now. Cleaned up the article further to remove some material nominator finds objectionable, while other parts of it are increasingly sourced independently now. Still needs some work, but this AfD is clearly moot at this point. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 02:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)  Now 18 properly cited sources, plus 8 paper ones yet to be verified. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 22:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep With the new sources that SMC and I dug up, I am wholeheartedly convinced that the subject is notable, being essentially the most famous trick shot player in the world (being the world champion and all), who has been discussed and interviewed multiple times in various billiards-based magazines and news outlets worldwide. Silver  seren C 03:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I was asked to return to this AfD now that the article has been substantially edited. I see that sources have been added, but I'm not sure how reliable they are - because I don't know a lot about billiards, and niche magazines could be super-specialist or they could be basically amateur. The Q-Ball Express source certainly does not seem reliable (the author is a "house pro" in a steak restaurant) - could someone more knowledgeable than me explain whether or not Pool & Billiard and Billiards Digest are reliable publications? (The other mentions of Pelinga seem to be in passing.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You can see Pool & Billiard's About Page yourself. I've heard of the magazine and I don't even play pool. You can probably find it in any place that sells magazines. Same with Billiards Digest's, here's its About Page. Both magazines are the top magazines for cue ball sports and are only "niche" in the sense that they are about a specific sport, just like Golf Digest is just about Golf or Men's Health is about male fitness. Both Billiards magazines are widely read and distributed and are exactly the sort of references you would look for for cue ball sport player articles. Silver  seren C 04:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Concur. Both BD and P&B have been around for decades and both (as well as the younger Inside Pool) are professionally written and edited, and distributed internationally. No comment on QBE; I don't have any issue of it or any directly knowledge of its editorial policies (the publisher's day job isn't necessarily relevant; very few people can actually make a living at nothing but writing). — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 22:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, in that case I've struck my vote above. Keep with specialized sources. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:34, 22 September 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.