Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Badger (poker player) (2nd nomination)


 * 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 speedy keep. Just drop the stick already, won't you DegenFarang? (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 19:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Steve Badger (poker player)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completing nomintion on another editor's behalf, i have no opnion on the merits DES (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I nominated. Not notable. Winning a preliminary event at the WSOP does not meet the requirement for notability per WP:BLP1E. He has done nothing else notable, the rest of the article is fluff. There are what seem like three RS's but each simply says he won a tournament and then quotes his opinion on random stuff. We already knew he won the tournament and we know one event doesn't make you notable -- even if 3 RS's confirm you won it. Handpolk  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  03:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI, Handpolk has been blocked as a sock of DegenFarang. This editor has nominated this article for deletion three times now, including Articles for deletion/Steve Badger which isn't listed here. Liz  Read! Talk! 13:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

*Weak Keep *Delete He fits under Wikiproject:Poker essay for notability and while that's just an essay, he did win a very significant event and is a bracelet winner. There are just enough references in which he's sought out for poker expertise by reliable sources that I'm barely on this side of the line. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI that essay is out of date. There is unanimous agreement on the project talk page for no longer automatically considering bracelet winners notable. Who exactly to consider notable we haven't agreed on yet. Handpolk   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  05:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! If there's no longer consensus on that issue, then I'm over on delete.


 * Speedy keep. Nominator is virtually certain to be nine-time banned User:DegenFarang. Article was previously snow keep here when this banned user previously nominated it. The article has two references from the New York Times, one from the San Francisco Chronicle, one from the largest poker site in the world, and others from reliable poker sources like Cardplayer magazine. 2005 (talk) 03:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Your baseless accusations and personal attacks have no place here. Focus on content, not people. A player being quoted in the NYT doesn't mean anything. None of those sources do anything to establish notability. Handpolk   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  08:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep - Well sourced, and won a significant event. May not be the most accomplished person, but notable per policy.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Which policy are you referring to? Because WP:GNG says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources..."Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail" and that doesn't apply to any of the sources in the article. They give a brief sentence on his background and then quote him. Per policy, he is not notable, at least not based on these sources. Handpolk   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  09:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep - Looks like plenty of sources to indicate notability to me. Rray (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you familiar with WP:GNG? If so, show which sources address Badger directly and in detail? Handpolk   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  13:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete - Being quoted does not establish notability and according to WP:POKER consensus, winning one World Series of Poker tournament doesn't do it either. Not notable. LowballChamp (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC) LowballChamp blocked as a sock of DegenFarang and hence a double !vote with the nom. Favonian (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep. Even if this hadn't been the nomination of an obvious and disruptive sockpuppet, I think the subject is notable based on the sources available. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:21, 6 July 2015 (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.