Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zach Henderson


 * 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, proficient poker player but fails to meet WP:BIO. Closing per WP:SNOW among registered contributors.  Dei z  talk 01:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Zach Henderson

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

Removed prod. Non-notable poker player who fails to meet WP:N. He has only entered a single tournament and finished 11th in it. The article claims he is ranked 11th in the world but this is a fallacy as he has only competed in the one tournament and it wasn't even one of the majors. I believe this is a likely self-bio. Djsasso (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * d per nom. If we could accurately describe what it is about the style of all these self-bio pages that jumps right out at you when you see them, we could make it a CSD and save ourselves a lot of time. --fvw *  17:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to claim that a World Series of Poker tournament is a "non-major" and just goes to show the lack of knowledge of the party trying to have this particular article deleted. As a professional poker player, I think it's absurd to call Zach6668 anything other than notable. Just because he is mostly a cash game player does not mean he isn't entirely relevant in the poker community. Removing this because of an ignorant reader's lack of knowledge about a significant entity in the poker world goes in direct opposition to the point of Wikipedia; namely to educate and inform about people or things of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:72.187.216.13 (talk • contribs)
 * There are different levels of events, the World Series of Poker is a major group of tournaments, but not all of the events in the World Series are of the same notability level. For example in the World Series, the major events would be the World Championship events and the Main Event. Players have to meet WP:V and WP:NOTE to qualify for an article, he does neither. -Djsasso (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And to be more specific to poker he fails Poker player notability guidelines. -Djsasso (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete – Sorry to say, it is time to fold. Could find no information, as noted here  by any type of 3rd party, or even secondary, - reliable – verifiable – creditable source.  ShoesssS Talk 17:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Henderson has received public recognition of his notability; he has been recognized as a featured member on one of the most popular poker-related discussion boards.--Venicebeach (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * — Venicebeach (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Wasn't that the same site he was the moderator of? That's quite something. --fvw *  18:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and look they are trying to recruit help to save the article at their forum. -Djsasso (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's funny that you would use his popularity amongst the people who look up to him as a reason AGAINST his inclusion here. Of course there's an effort to keep this here. Zach Henderson has inspired and helped many of them. Zach Henderson is only not well-known to those outside of the poker universe; those who only casually follow televised tournaments. It's like saying that Andre Johnson isn't a relevant NFL player because the Texans aren't ever on TV. Zach Henderson is the Andre Johnson of poker.
 * It's not about his popularity, I am sure he is a great guy. But in order to be eligible for inclusion on wikipedia you have to be the subject of multiple reliable sources and meet WP:NOTE/WP:BIO and be verifiable. Popularity is not the same as notability. Andre Johnson might not be on TV alot, but he is written about in reliable news papers, sports magazines and on reliable sports based sites. Zach Henderson has not been written about in such ways. -Djsasso (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Cardplayer Magazine is more notable for the world of poker than, say, The Sporting News is for the sporting world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.216.13 (talk • contribs)
 * — 72.187.216.13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I am sure it is, and when you can find an article about him from that magazine, as well as articles from other sources then he will meet the requirements. -Djsasso (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. 0. 1. None. None. None. 0. None. None. 0. I think that speaks for it self!  vıd ıoman  19:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to volunteer this post http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-forum/index.php?showtopic=128721&hl=Zach&st=20, in which Zack is mentioned as a top 10 poker player by his peers, a community of almost 30,000 poker players. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.20.44 (talk • contribs)
 * — 71.197.20.44 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * And I would like to point you to Wikipedia Reliable Sources of which a forum is not one. -Djsasso (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am Zachs #1 fan,He Has tought me how to be a winning lhe player. iv recently jumped up to the big .25/.50 cent hold em games on pokerstars thanks to him and currently have a 4bb/100 win rate over 400 hands, If this is not proof enough how superior this mans game is then wikipedia needs to remove wayne gretzkys and micheal jordans entry's as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachs number1 Fan (talk • contribs)
 * — Zachs number1 Fan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No other sources have written about him? His status has stretched from North America to Europe, as the British tournament tracking site "The Hendon Mob" has an entry for him. I think that is the solid proof that Zach is indeed a legit poker star and his name is simply being dragged through the mud right now for no apparent reason.With all of the false articles on Wikipedia for someone to attack, how can you decide that this one doesn't fit the billing when infact it IS a REAL person who has REAL accomplishments? Whoever is challenging this is not only doing a disservice to Wikipedia, but a disservice to poker players around the world. Thank you for your time. --King1305
 * — King1305 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Unfortunately that is just a listing, he needs to have articles written about him not just listings. See WP:RS. You might also take a look at Poker player notability guidelines to see what it takes for a poker player to be considered notable enough for inclusion. -Djsasso (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you need to re-read your own link as Zach Henderson very clearly falls within the guidelines listed there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.216.13 (talk • contribs)
 * Adding his name to a list of requirements is vandalism. -Djsasso (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete ASAP Clearly not a notable person, the influx of "support" for this article comes from a post on an internet forum. http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-forum/index.php?showtopic=131148 . --Snitchaments (talk) 05:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well now they have a fake account in my name to amuse themselves with over there. It's like we are dealing with two year olds. -Djsasso (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahh, the maturity of the internet, eh? You've hit the bigtime, dude! Resolute 15:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete utterly non-notable. Write your autobiography somewhere else, Zach. Resolute 15:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Love that earth is linked. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 15:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and please come back again when 1) your obsessive Paparazzi fanbase matures and 2) you can establish notability (biographies) through significant coverage via reliable secondary sources. MuZemike  ( talk ) 15:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Aside from the obvious notability that Zach enjoys from being the eleventh best limit hold'em player in the world, can we all agree that he's even more famous now, and certainly more notable, due to the wide-reaching impact this talk back has had on everyone? Now that he has influenced a fan-base beyond the poker players who idolized him so, exclusion from Wikipedia can only be attributed to a 1) ESPN-driven bias against limit hold'em players and/or 2) the anti-Canadianism of the parties attempting to censor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.216.13 (talk • contribs)
 * To be on wikipedia you do not have to be famous, you have to be notable. Hundreds of these deletion discussions go on every day, the fact his article is being deleted is not something out of the ordinary. Secondly atleast three of the people who voted delete above, including myself are Canadian. So its hardly Anti-Canadianism. -Djsasso (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You might note that the word "notability" was used once and "notable" was used once in my previous statement. In any case, I find it hard to believe that Chris Crocker, the kid who screamed to leave Britney alone, is the kind of notability that you strive to see included during your run as Wikipedia Nazi, yet, there he is. It seems to me more like you had your feelings hurt and have decided to make this ridiculous campaign your week's mission. Also, with that level of insecurity, it is not surprising to me that you're a self-loathing Canadian and, thus, anti-Canadian. Some of us really appreciate our neighbors to the north. LEAVE ZACH ALONE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.216.13 (talk • contribs)
 * I might note that you edited your comment to say that after I posted... -Djsasso (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no record of him performing that edit.68.215.177.160 (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Quoting from what I'd assume a reliable media source: "I host a North American Wide Poker Radio Show on Sirius Satellite Radio, Channel 98, called the Hardcore Poker Show. I have conferred with Zach Henderson several times on poker related questions, and value his opinions and skillsets as a limit poker expert. To suggest that either his accomplishments or his knowledege are not relevant is simply inaccurate. I would have Zach Henderson as a guest on our show at any time, and our guest list is a who's who of the poker world. With no offense intended, I would suggest that deleting an entry on a poker player would require the expertise of those in the poker world. While I am in no way in a position to discuss the merits of a mathematicians accomplishments in the world of math, I certainly would expect the same courtesy be extended to those of us that make our living in the poker world." -Chris Tessaro, Host, The Hardcore Poker Show. 68.215.177.160 (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And maybe eventually one of you guys will read WP:Reliable sources and see that you need reliable published sources in things like magazines and news papers etc. This isn't a job, references from fellow poker people don't get you an article. -Djsasso (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Ladies and Gentleman - I truly respect your opinion and your participation in Wikipedia. However, like any formal organization - group - club - corporation - and so on - and so on, there are specific rules - policies and guidelines, that any and all groups must adhere to, to be considered a respectable and trustworthy organization.  One of the most important, with regards to Wikipedia, and again most legitimate organizations, is the adherence to their specific policies and guidelines.  With regards to Wikipedia, a set of policies and guidelines have been establishe.  One of the most important policies are the rules that establish Wikipedia Notability and Consensus regarding inclusion here at Wikipedia.  Sorry to say at this time, and I hope in the future that he does,  Mr. Henderson does not meet the qualifications of inclusion by being covered by 3rd party - creditable - reliable and verifiable sources.  If you can provide these requirements, I am more than happy to have Zach be able to point to his inclusion here.  I hope I explained the reasons behind the current debate and hope more for your continued participation in Wikipedia.  Thanks    ShoesssS Talk 00:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

''The following has been transcluded from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Zach Henderson:


 * 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.