Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Jones (author)

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, per sourcing added to article. Another non-admin close. uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 18:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: previous non-admin closure (as speedy keep) overturned. Please let this go through the normal process, this is nowhere near a legitimate WP:SNOW closure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it was closed prematurely as a snowball... but that doesn't meant that it still won't snowball...Balloonman 17:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with the close, but non-admins shouldn't be closing any debates with delete votes as "speedy", regardless of how many sources have been added. Non-admins should generally steer clear of all but the simplest closures. Deiz talk 00:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Jones (author)

Appears to be unknown outwith professional poker. Has written one book of unknown significance, article supported by 2 niche poker web sources. Prod contested as "ludicrous" by a user who edits solely on poker and could spend more time reading up on WP:BIO. Deiz talk 03:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis that enough secondary sources should be out there, even if they are poker-oriented sources. His book is widely considered the reference introductory guide to low-limit poker, he's been a featured magazine columnist, and he was the poker manager (maybe still is) for pokerstars. Think we just need to dig deeper. --Sesameball^Talk 03:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but I would still like to see the sources, or evidence the book is that popular. I haven't seen anything that really satisfies WP:BIO. Deiz talk 03:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Then the appropriate thing to do would have been to discuss on the talk page for the article, not nominate the article for deletion. Rray 04:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Frivilous, absurd nomination. The guy wrote one of the best selling books in the poker niche, and was responsible for running a two BILLION dollar business. Obviously meets WP:BIO. Instead of making frivilous nominations, nomiator should have had the courtesy to search google first to see the literally 125,000 plus search mentions of this person. 2005 04:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep - Not only is this an absurd nomination, but the nominator's personal attack of another editor here is entirely inappropriate, distasteful, and out-of-place. Rray 04:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Clearly meets WP:N, Very well know inside poker community, for more about Lee Jone for thise who don't know of him. see:[1] [2] [3]▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 04:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Delete, unless better sources establishing notability outside the narrow commercial circles of this person's online industry are found. At this point, I'm not convinced that the coverage in dedicated commercial poker sites constitutes reliable sourcing of notability. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are 2 references from Cardplayer. Saying that this doesn't count as a reliable source because it's a dedicated commercial poker site is like saying an article about a football player in Sports Illustrated doesn't count because Sports Illustrated is a dedicated sports website. Rray 18:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that Sunrise doesn't realize that Cardplayer magazine is one of the most respected sources on the subject of Poker in the country. It has been around for almost 20 years. The other two sources, that were in the article at the time, are also somewhat credible. They may be on cites dedicated to poker, but that doesn't mean that they don't have validity. A better comparison would be to compare them to cites such as political watchdogs/think tanks/etc. One may wish for a more objective cite than Move-On.Org, but that doesn't mean that moveon.org doesn't meet the criteria for reliability. One may wish for a better source than Pokerpages or poker source, but that doesn't mean that those two sources aren't credible/reliable.Balloonman 23:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BIO. One line is: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors." We do have guidelines for these matters for good reason. The views in pottery magazines matter about potters. the views in baseball magazines matter about baseball players. The views in autoracing magazines matter about auto racers, even if you or the rest of us could not care less. The guideline exists in part to prevent nominations like this where an article is attacked because the person is unknown or not important to the nominator. In this case the person meets every aspect of WP:BIO creative professionals easily, even if someone in Timbuktu unfamiliar with poker does not know him. He has notability in one of the world's niches, and he meets the guideline for a biography article. 2005 00:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that I added two mentions of him in the New York Times to the article. The sourcing remains narrow, but his book appears very popular (sales rank at amazon.com 6,243, and 133 reader reviews) and this is enough for me to keep the article. His leaving pokerstars.com might be due to worries about the legal future of online poker in the US, but I couldn't find any reliable sources for that interesting suggestion. EdJohnston 16:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Published author of a book is in it's 3rd edition first released in 1994, second 2000, third 2005. Lee managed the Pokerstars card room leading it to become the industry leader. extremely well known in the poker community. -Pparazorback 16:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep His book is considered the bible of low limit poker. Virtually every big poker name that has emerged over the past decade cites his book as the book for low limit hold'em. While the person who originally closed this as Snowball did so a little too early, I think this is a case where a snowball should be considered.Balloonman 17:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is obvious. He is (1) a widely cited published author, (2) a regular columnist for the primary magazine about poker,(3) the (now former) manager of one of the largest online poker rooms (a VERY large business), (4) a future television commentator, and (5) an inventor of an interesting poker strategic system (SAGE). I think each of these is sufficient for notability individually, and all together make this easy. There are reliable sources indicating he is each of these. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This AfD discussion seems to be better-referenced than the article itself. From your comment I learn that he has a regular column, but I don't see that mentioned in the article. I also hear that online poker rooms are a very large business but I don't see that quantified anywhere in the article. The existence of SAGE is noted in the NYT (patting myself on the back for finding the reference), but what SAGE actually does is not explained in the article. I think the commenters to this AfD have all kinds of information that is going to waste if it only stays here in the AfD debate, and doesn't get actually put in the article. EdJohnston 01:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly. Use your energies to reference the article, then opine "keep, per sufficient sourcing added to article". Blast me all you want for nominating it, but the article did not demonstrate the notability required on Wikipedia. Deiz talk 03:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deiz - while uncited, 4 of the five things I mentioned were in the article when you prod-ed it. Ed - All of the things I mentioned are cited in the article. Besides it's much easier to tell you what I know than find appropriate citation and add it to the article. Either way, I don't think it's not particularly productive to criticize people for not donating more time. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it did demonstrate notability, so lets not pretend it did not. It did not have citations showing where he was a book and magazine author, but it stated he was. It did have an external link about him running the game operation of a multibillion dollar business, though it wasn't in proper reference format. Notability was plainly obvious, so denying that is just silly. Of course it could have had more citations, but an encouragement of that is not to do a frivilous afd. Simply put a sources tag on the article, or improve it yourself. In this case it would be easy to do because the volume of information available is mountainous. The argument other people should do it is just silly, but we do have a way to show good faith by respectfully saying an article needs sources. I hope you will do that in the future. 2005 07:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple steps that could have and should have been taken to clean up the article before nominating it for deletion. There are tags that can be added to articles to say that notability isn't demonstrated, that references aren't there at all, that references are there but don't take the form of inline citations...there's even a talk page where you can ask about the notability of the subject of the article. The point is that AfD isn't (or shouldn't be) a tool to force other editors to clean up an article you think needs cleaning up. The AfD process is a tool to delete articles that should be deleted. Rray 09:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Rray. Next time you (I appreciate it wasn't you in this case, just a general "you") unprod an unsourced article, don't describe the prod as "ludicrous". Do add some sources. Then we don't end up at AfD, and you don't have to go on about maintenance tags, talk pages and generally quote wikiphilosophy to people who know it oh-so-well... Deiz talk 09:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per practically everyone here. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 16:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.