Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Bonomo (second 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Justin Bonomo

This article was previously deleted through AfD. A DRV consensus overturned this closure as improper (among other things, the closer had commented in the debate.) This matter is resubmitted to AfD for new consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Please note that I will be making no further edits to this or any other page on Wikipedia under this or any other account, as this nonsense has shown me that the amount of proportion of arguing one has to do to the actually useful edits one makes is way too high, and I don't have the time or the time or tolerance for frustration for something so ultimately frivolous. This article has enough sources, and it's your choice whether to vote to delete or to go out there and cite it properly. Enjoy your wikipedia. Grindingteeth 23:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, As it stands, should have been speedied as an attack article. :) Dlohcierekim 15:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What attacks are there in the article, and why haven't you removed them? Grindingteeth 22:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:V - the ultimate criterion. WilyD 15:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What do you mean? Many reliable sources were discussed in the AFD and the deletion review. It's verifiable. Grindingteeth 22:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • False, exactly none were brought up in the AFD. One Business Week artilce was brought up that only happened to randomly mention him. No matter how many sockpuppets you make, you can't pretend what didn't happen did. 2005 22:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Again, all I can suggest you do is review the first AfD and the deletion review. Many reliable sources were brought up. Grindingteeth 22:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Now seems to pass WP:V and even WP:BIO - I suppose a keep is in order.WilyD 00:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Authors and defenders had plenty of time to address the concerns during this long discussion. `'mikka (t) 17:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • People who wanted to delete the article had just as much time to find reliable sources. Unlike them, people who wanted to keep the article have provided in the AfD, deletion review, and now the article itself several reliable sources. Grindingteeth 22:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • A single notable event from his bio deserves nothing more than a sentence in section Online poker# Integrity and fairness: cheated, got caught, apologized (he may shove his apology you know where), lucky not got shot, so what? `'mikka (t) 00:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless article changes, I stand behind my former vote. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 17:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete cheating is not sufficient reason for notability. Mukadderat 18:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Here we have a major, well-known player, who has been very successful at various forms of poker, being caught and publically outted for cheating. It's notable enough. Grindingteeth 22:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Non "major", not "very successful". not first caught. `'mikka (t) 00:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete will reconsider if sourced. ~ trialsanderrors 20:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Rohirok. ~ trialsanderrors 02:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:V trumps all. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If it trumps all, then you can surely explain what's wrong with the many sources brought up in the AfD, deletion review, and now the article itself. Grindingteeth 22:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete again. Should never have been reopened. 2005 20:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I attempted to reliably source this. If I failed, please help by pointing out how. You might find benefit in the many sources discussed in the AfD and deletion review. Grindingteeth 22:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Sourcing a triviality surely isn't the point. The subject is not notable as a poker player (and just to anticpate the obvious, his online accomplishements were due to cheating, which makes them non-poker accomplishments). He has one casino final table in a tournament, and isn't even old enough to play ring games in a major US casino poker room. The cheating incident is mildly interesting, but *he* is not, and merits no article. Two sentences about the incident in the poker cheating article are the appropriate place to mention the incident. 2005 22:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Please refrain from removing my citations from the article while at the same time claiming I'm not providing any. Justin has done significantly better in poker than what you suggest, both in tournaments and in cash games. Grindingteeth 22:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) The added source from bluff magazine fails to establish notability in my mind because the article is not primarily about the subject (Justin) but instead about the practice for which he was guilty. The second is an apology by him, thus also fails to establish notability. Unless there is a published article more directly about him, I think he is not sufficiently notable. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I am adding more sources for notability. Grindingteeth 22:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, added reliable, independant source all about Justin's poker career, including his cheating. Grindingteeth 22:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless better sources are used and a more complete article is revealed. ––FeldBum 23:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Subject is not notable in terms of poker accomplishments. SubSeven 23:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I think WP:V has clearly been met and then some. The issue here is notability, and that's it. Seems to me that there are a fairly large number of poker players at about his level of success, but the cheating scandal thing has a lot of coverage. Plus, Wikipedia is not paper. Mangojuice<sup>talk</sup> 23:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The subject of the article isn't notable. Rray 00:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. There is much longer way to establish notability and verifiability than just quote several online sources. To make references valid, the sources themselves must be proved to be notable. It is not my business to check whether the quoted website is not run by Bonomo's or Grindingteeth's boyfrend in his garage. `'mikka (t) 00:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Give me a break, Mikka. There's no such thing as a notable sources policy. And if you want to argue that sources are run by Bonomo or Gridinginteeth in some kind of bizarre conspiracy to delude Wikipedia into including an article, then it definitely IS your business to look into it; you're being dismissive of the hard work that another editor put in to trying to meet your own demands. Don't bite the newbies, but even if Grindingteeth wasn't new, you need to be more WP:CIVIL and assume good faith. But anyway, Here: Source 1 is from Bluff Magazine, which is a print magazine with a website. The magazine is a real magazine, with a decent Amazon sales rank. Source 2 is from CompatiblePoker.com, a website with a 200K Alexa rank; not bad, considering that it's a niche site that caters to Mac and Linux poker players trying to play online, yet doesn't offer games itself. They have bios of only 13 online pros, and the link is the one for Justin. Source 3 is a repost of Justin's apology from his website; it is hosted on a site about honesty in online tournaments. A quick websearch reveals other sources from msn.foxsports.com (yeah, I know it's Fox but *I* think it's still reliable), BusinessWeek online (before the cheating incident), another Bluff Magazine article; passing mention, but lists Justin as one of 6 "players to watch", and another Bluff Magazine; this time a profile of him. It's one thing to ask those supporting an article like this to do some work: it's another thing entirely to judge that work without even taking the time to look at it. Mangojuice^talk 04:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Please don't pretend that the original editor acted in good faith, as that is very offensive to editors who do and have. Frankly I don't know what you think the above proves, or even why you mention it. There is no dispute a cheating incident involving this person took place, and is mentioned in places around the web. The point is whether this person merits an article, and given after all this time there are only two sentences that are far more appropriate to either the online poker article or the cheating at poker articles, that pretty obviously answers the question. The person is a footnote of a footnote. 2005 06:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Please read what I was responding to (Mikka's comment), and you'll see the point. And I don't know who you mean by the "original editor," because the article was edited by some dozen users before you nominated it for deletion. However, I certainly do assume good faith of the editors who try to improve the article in response to community demands. We're supposed to. Mangojuice^talk 13:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
      • So now you insult the original editor by saying he wasn't acting in good faith by creating this article? Vivelequebeclibre 21:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Looking at it again, I have no idea why I said "original editor" since that wasn't what i meant. I was refering to the accounts used by the person posting here as Gridinginteeth. 2005 22:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect with and to Online poker#Integrity and fairness. Subject is not notable enough to merit his own article, but the incident in which he is involved is quite notable within the context of online poker. Rohirok 01:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm not sure why this is being nominated a second time. The deletion review already demonstrated that the article was notable, even though it is short. This is just going to discourage the original creator from making more fine edits. Vivelequebeclibre 03:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The DRV overturned the first AfD on procedural grounds, not on notability grounds. ~ trialsanderrors 04:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Then why did people who wanted the article kept closed in the DRV talking about the article's content (namely, its notability)? Vivelequebeclibre 21:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mangojuice, meets my interpretation of the WP:BIO inclusionary guidelines. RFerreira 07:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep please per mangojuice this poker player is notable and verifiable too Yuckfoo
• Merge/Delete per 2005 and others. This person is only notable according to the article for Cheating in poker, and it can be included within that article, rather than requiring an article of its own. Essexmutant 00:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, to me he is more known as "ZeeJustin" so I added that to the article. The story of him cheating is well known in the poker community and is often used as an example when describing cheating online. Definitly notable to most poker players. bbx 07:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the above. --Myles Long 14:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable and I question the assertion Definitely notable to most poker players since, if that were true, verifiability & sources would be out there in, so to speak, spades. Which it isn't. Eusebeus 19:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. So when did Wikipedia fall into the hands of these strict, authoritative, big-brother types who say "No no no!" to every minor article and edit, using the one-size-fits-all excuse of "Notability"? (No personal attacks notwithstanding, I point a big fat finger at User:2005 as the embodiment of this negative attitude). I, for one, envision Wikipedia to be a source of ALL knowledge, big or small. In fact, I am the creator of the Unity Young article, who is much less notable than Justin Bonomo, but who became (humorously) famous after ONE single bout on ESPN2. Does the Unity Young article serve the community of curious people who stop by Wikipedia to see if there's some info about her? YES! And I will fight anyone who wants to delete THAT article. Just like I will fight anyone who tries to delete this one here. Thus, I join with my fellow Wikipedians who wish to keep the Justin Bonomo article. We are not strict disciplinarians. We want free, open knowledge. Immense, vast, all-encompassing, searchable knowledge. I used to be a random user who searched Wikipedia for ANY and ALL knowledge. As long as there are curious people who come to Wikipedia to search for "Justin Bonomo", to see what Wikipedia has to say about his cheating, then that is notable enough for me (and most others). This article shall remain. Cloudreaver 21:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

These two points are so important, let me re-emphasize: SEARCHABILITY and CONTENT. If enough people SEARCH for it, Wikipedia should have it. And focus on increasing CONTENT, the more content the better. The more entries the better. 1,000,000,000,000 entries on Wikipedia, I say. Let the knowledge and information flow.Cloudreaver 21:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That's an impressive manifesto, but you don't make the rules. Here are Wikipedia Policies, a good place to start reading. SubSeven 01:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Seriously. :) But s/he is making a point that is well-established in policy: Wikipedia is not paper. Mangojuice^talk 14:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I took up this cause and advanced this philosophy only after I myself was a victim of deletion. And it wasn't fun. It sucks. Suppression of information is a reprehensible action. So thanks to Mangojuice for showing me this page: Wikipedia is not paper. I will BE BOLD in adding content. And if all else fails, I will ignore all rules. - Cloudreaver 19:44, 31 August 2006 (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.