Samuel Galindo ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Page was kept on the basis on a no concensus on WP:N supercedes WP:ATHLETE. This is true, but the AfD gave no examples of how the references provided in this revision passed general notability. The only two reliable sources about the footballer fail WP:SPECULATION, as well as the footballer failing WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-professional league or competition. -- Jimbo ^[online] 20:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, though I probably would've closed as keep myself. As Blue Square Thing pointed out, failing WP:ATHLETE is meaningless if he passes WP:N, thus mostly invalidating most of the delete !votes (especially those that mention nothing but WP:ATHLETE). And though I don't see much discussion on whether or not he passes WP:N in truth (which is likely why it was closed as no consensus rather than keep) there is no valid consensus to delete there. A second discussion might be useful as to whether or not WP:N is fully satisfied, but you'd probably want to wait a while for that lest it get shouted down by "too soon" voices. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 20:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• endorse close Close makes sense given the circumstances. I'm not seeing any compelling reason to overturn. As Lifebaka observes WP:N overrides WP:ATHLETE so there's not much for us to do here. JoshuaZ ( talk) 21:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Obviously WP:N supercedes WP:ATHLETE, the questions is about the validity of the references that meet WP:N. -- Jimbo ^[online] 22:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• • • Which is the purview of AfD not DRV. AfD failed to reach a consensus that they did not meet WP:N. JoshuaZ ( talk) 20:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• comment as the original nominator I still feel the article fails WP:ATHLETE and only passes WP:N if it is applied without consideration of the actual content of the sources. Virtually every webpage about the kid is little more than speculation that Galindo has a great career infront of him. If he plays in either of the World Cup qualifiers he will easily pass WP:ATHLETE, if he doesn't play we would keeping the article on the back of press speculation, (ie content that would/should be deleted if it appeared on our site). King of the North East 22:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as no consensus The relationship of WP:N GNG and WP AHLETE is undetermined. They are both guidelines, and therefore both flexible, and attempts to specify which take priority have always foundered., they are to be read in conjunction with each other, and the choice of which one to use is a matter of judgment. If a person has some sort of notability outside W{:ATHLETE, then using WP:N GNG makes sense, but a person whose notability is athletics and has not played at the highest level is not qualified for an article. Endorse as indicating there was no agreement of how such interpretation should go; there can always be another AfD in a month or two or three, when we may reach some degree of agreement on interpretation one way or another. ,. (My own view is that, especially given the increasing range of GNews etc. , we will soon have what was mean to be a restrictive guideline, the GNG, used in an inclusive way that no rational inclusionist would justify. What this means is that I am not an inclusionist or deletionist, for notability of people, but rather insist that notability means accomplishments, not just minimal references, no matter wetyher this leads to inclusion or exclusion. The point of an encyclopedia is to have meaningful content.). DGG ( talk) 01:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Erb? WP:BIO (of which WP:ATHLETE is a part) specifically says "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.". That seems to make the relationship plain. Could you explain? Hobit ( talk) 00:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply

to me, this mean s they may be notable for other reasons than athletic accomplishments. DGG ( talk) 21:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse non-consensus close, as there was no consensus to delete. Stifle ( talk) 08:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the close. As discussed by others, it was clearly valid. Whether he passes GNG or N requires another discussion, so I support a DRV-backed relist to counter the too soon voices, as long as the reason for relisting is clearly specified. - Mgm| ^(talk) 10:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Juliancolton's accurate reading of the consensus.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 22:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Though I might have closed as keep. Hobit ( talk) 00:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as no consensus. Jauerback ^dude?/ _dude. 13:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as no consensus. Mukadderat ( talk) 15:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Jonathan Kotula ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Jonathan Kotula is a World Series of Poker Bracelet winner. While the outcome of was delete and I am not questioning the verdict based upon the AFD itself; neither WP:POKER nor Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living people were made aware of this AFD, thus the two projects with the most insight and potential interest in the project did not know about this AFD. Being a WSOP bracelet winner is considered to be the pentacle of the poker world It is easily on par with the WP:Athlete's notion of participating at the highest level. The Poker project easily considers this as notable enough for an article. We are not talking about an event that nobody has ever heard of, we are talking about a World Series of Poker Champion. I considered simply recreating the article, but it would boil down to the same issues---he is only known for one event, but that event is a WSOP championship. And while I am certain we can find more sources [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] most will be trivial in nature. As a WSOP champion, however, any event where he participates, it will be news. If he doesn't defend his title, it is reported! --- I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC) notifying WP:Poker of this DRV reply

• Ignoring, the status of wikiprojects in defining notability critera, WP:ATHLETE et al are secondary criteria, as the heading to that additional criteria section says: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.", the special cases section considers various scenerios "Failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria" being the one which appears it might be the most relevant here. The oneevent argument for deltion is perhaps questionable, but does this person meet the general notability criteria? If not shouldn't he just be mentioned in the appropriate place? Wiki projects don't get to define the notability criteria for their area of interest (and many projects have overlapping areas of interest), if they want to change the criteria then they need to do it in the normal way, on the appropriate pages, with a broad community consensus. Non-notification is also non-issue, it isn't mandatory and you'd expect those involved in the wiki project to be watching poker related articles wouldn't we? -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 06:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

The projects do pay attention to the articles, but that doesn't mean that we know when somebody creates a new article, which is why it is standard to notify the applicable wikiprojects about said AfD's. This was created on April 29th and deleted without the project knowing it existed. But the question becomes, what is the epitome of Poker? Winning a WSOP Bracelet, this is the gold standard for notability in the genre. This is an article that we would have eventually created, and had we known about the AFD, would have defended it and probably gone out and done more leg work.--- I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Well you ignore the stuff about who makes notability criteria and what they mean. I would say the "gold standard for notability" in an genre is actually the general notability guideline. (As a personal option I find it hard to reconcile the "epitome of Poker" with "we would have eventually created", and someone from the project would surely have noticed such an important article being created and nominated for deletion.) The question still is do they meet the established notability guidelines as have reached consensus amoungst the wikipedia community. If so then it appears that the reason for deletion can be overcome and an article written, if not then perhaps all there is to be said about this can be said within other articles (or not at all). And it still isn't the case that notifying wikiprojects is a required part of the deletion process. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 18:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

No notifying the projects is not required, but it is considered a common courtesy as the projects are generally the ones best suited to evaluate the subject and are the ones most likely to work to save it. They are also the ones most likely to revisit the subject if they are in fact notable, thus by notifying the projects, you avoid later issues. If WP:Poker had been notified, then I wouldn't be here today, the project would have been working on saving the article two weeks ago. The fact that we know about it today and care, should be an indicator that we are interested. As for "we would have eventually created"---how do you think I found this article? I was going to write the article about the subject, so the eventually we are talking about is last night--2 weeks after the AFD!--- I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle ( talk) 15:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

  And I'm not asking DRV to say that the subject is notable, only to give a bless on WP recreating the article per the conventions use on other WSOP bracelet winners. He will still be a 1E, which is why the article was deleted, thus recreating without bringing it here first, would be CSD bait for a G4. But some 1E's are more important than others. Being a WSOP bracelet winner makes him notable in Poker Circles.--- I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

  That's fine; I have no objection to recreation once the issues that led to it getting deleted are overcome. Stifle ( talk) 08:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply

  Oh, and userfying is fine too if desired. Stifle ( talk) 08:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply

  And if the problem is that people didn't realize he met WP:ATHLETE when he does? How does that get fixed? Hobit ( talk) 01:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Re-open the AFD- There were three people in the AFD, and that was one comment, two deletes. And this was after being relisted twice. I think if the appropriate projects had been notified A: The article might have been improved, and B: the outcome may have been different. Umbralcorax ( talk) 16:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

  AFD has no quorum, and notifying projects is not required. I can understand point (a), but in choosing how to deal with a debate (close, relist etc.) the closing admin shouldn't be thinking about (b)-- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 18:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

  And if nobody from the project ever showed up, then it would be a strong indicator that said subject was deleted properly. 90% of the time no big deal. But when somebody from the project stumbles upon the AFD because they were going to create an article on said subject, then that should speak to the subjects notability as well. We are not talking about some unknown poker player who has never achieved anything.--- I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• I'd say just recreate it better, personally, and skip having to be here at all. Reopening and relisting the AfD is an option, sure, but I don't believe the a properly written article on this guy would have to end up at AfD at all (keeping in mind that I have not searched for sources myself) and as such wouldn't be deleted at AfD either. Skip the middle man, create a better article, and improve the project. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka ++ 17:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment/Overturn - Could this be {{ TempUndelete}}'d, as the article doesn't exist in Google Cache? If there is a lot of information, I would say overturn without prejudice to relisting on the grounds of "allow content to exist if someone who knows about the subject and who had previously not had the opportunity to find out about the AfD can assert its notability." If there is just a little information, perhaps it would be best to just close this DRV and recreate the article. NW ( Talk) ^{( How am I doing?)} 19:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I have no problem with recreating the article and doing so in the manner that other WSOP bracelet winners' articles are created. Normally, I would have done so automatically, but in this case, I felt the appropriate venue was to come here first as there is only so much that I can embellish upon the article. I am most concerned about recreating and having it simply tagged for deletion per G4. I have no problem with recreating and having it subject to being relisted as proposed above. As for tempundelete... not necessary, there isn't enough info in the original worth keeping.--- I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I see. In that case, "overturn without prejudice to relisting" makes the most sense then. The article was deleted originally because none of the original commentators recognized the importance of this gold bracelet, so I feel that there is no reason to not allow the recreation of the article. I don't feel that this is so much a matter of "AFD round 2" as "AFD with more informed 'voters'." In this case, I see no reason to keep the content out now that we know the article is properly notable. NW ( Talk) ^{( How am I doing?)} 20:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Note - Drawn Some expresses what I wanted to say. The buisness with Overturn/Endorse doesn't really concerns me; all I really want at the end of the day is that the article is recreated and improved from what it was before. NW ( Talk) ^{( How am I doing?)} 00:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Note—The single sentence in the last version was '''Johnathan Kotula''' is an American casino employee (in the [[Las Vegas Strip|Las Vegas]] O'Shea's Casino), who, on the 7th June 2009, won a [[WSOP]] braclet in Event 55 - the $500 Casino Employees No-Limit Hold'em event. He won a total of $87,929 <ref>www.pokerpages.com/players/profiles/117331/jonathan-kotula.htm</ref>, with an AfD message above and a reflist below. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 20:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse AfD was very properly closed after a couple of relistings. No prejudice against having the article undeleted, moved to user space, improved to meet an acceptable level of quality, and then reintroduced into main space. Drawn Some ( talk) 21:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Appropriate decision. Article can be userfied/improved then re-created. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 23:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• permit Recreation and if there is substantially more material, it will not be a G4. If you want to avoid deletion during the process, do it in userspace. The only reason I do not say relist, is that the article will stand a very much better chance if it is more substantial. Projects should be notified of deletions, so there can be informed discussion . DGG ( talk) 01:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation, as DGG above. The deletion of the original article was appropriate, but if a new article can be written that is substantially different and improved compared to it, it cannot be deleted under WP:CSD#G4. No prejudice against bringing the new article to AFD again, but it should be given a second chance to demonstrate notability first. Robofish ( talk) 02:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment I made the comment in the original AFD and I stand by it. The article made no distinction between the WSOP Main Event and any of the other poker contests going on at the time. Unless more can be said about the guy, I don't think a separate article is a good idea. Perhaps work out the history of said event and combine the winners in a list on that event's article? - Mgm| ^(talk) 10:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse this good close, and permit userfication per DGG and Stifle.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 22:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure per DGG with option to recreate assuming there is a substantial improvement. Jauerback ^dude?/ _dude. 13:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. No procedure violation. Mukadderat ( talk) 15:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn relist yes there was no procedural violation, but with so few comments the closer would ideally have thought to notify the relevant groups and would likely have had a very different outcome. While such notification isn't required, it puts us in a silly place where a perfectly fine article that meets our guidelines can't be recreated without being a G4 though it would have likely been kept if someone notified the right folks who understood it met WP:ATHLETE. Just saying. Hobit ( talk) 01:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply