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 and redirect to United Express Flight 3411. OK, I don't think this needs to run any longer. There's a certain point where the fine definitions of SNOW and the far more important issues of BLP converge, with the latter overriding it. As it appears that the article on the flight will be probably be Kept (or at least close as No Consensus) then deleting and Redirecting there is an obvious close - let the debate continue at that AfD. Black Kite (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Dao[edit]

David Dao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I redirected this to United Airlines Flight 3411 but the author wants to fight about here. So here we are wasting out time with an obvious delete. Dao has absolutely no notability outside of the UA incident and that article is undergoing AfD so if it isn't deemed notable enough for inclusion, Dao himself certainly isn't. Justeditingtoday (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nohomersryan - do you feel the fact he's a World Series of Poker Pro who has won nearly $250K on the poker circuit over the last ten years, that he was convicted of 98 charges of drug trafficking in 2004 in a case covered at the time by the Louisville Courier-Journal and WAVE-TV, and he was the subject of significant media coverage over the UAL incident in 2017 make this a case of BLP1E? BlueSalix (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find the World Series of Poker thing very solid, no. He is not listed anywhere on the 2009 World Series of Poker results page, and that's full of people that have no articles. There are tens of thousands of players in each one, and it's not a very convincing claim of notability, especially since it's sourced to an article about him being pulled off the airplane. The other drug trafficking thing is not that impressive, considering all the sources are local news, and could easily be mentioned in the other article (especially since it's more notable as a "guy pulled off plane has checkered past!!" thing than anything). So yes, I'm sticking with my belief that this doesn't deserve its own article. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nohomersryan First, Wikipedia is not RS, second, the sources are not all local which should be apparent on a quick scan of the article had you undertaken one. But it sounds like we've reached the terminus of your interest in productive contribution to this discussion. Best - BlueSalix (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources of the arrest are directly local from when the event took place, the ones that aren't are in the context of him being pulled off the plane as far as I can tell. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So the local RS aren't good because they're only local (a new and novel argument) and the national RS aren't good because they're only national. Makes perfect sense, Nohomersryan. BlueSalix (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Err, no, I don't find the fact that he was previously in the news solely for something local a solid establishment of notability. The current sources that cover them aren't in context of David Dao the doctor, they're in context of David Dao the man who got shoved off a plane... aka his one event. The source of the second sentence in the "Drug convictions" paragraph is titled "Revealed: All About the Doctor Dragged Off Overbooked United Flight — and His Troubled Past"; it's not what I'd call sustained coverage, and I believe this isn't a case of a previously notable man thrust into the spotlight. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aircorn - your position is that him being a World Series of Poker Pro who has won nearly $250K on the poker circuit over the last ten years, his conviction of 98 charges of drug trafficking in 2004 in a case covered at the time by the Louisville Courier-Journal and WAVE-TV, and the UAL incident in 2017 are all a single event? BlueSalix (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If there exists a valid target for Dao, then that is where, at a minimum, this title should default to redirecting with history in tact per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kierzek - do you feel the fact he's a World Series of Poker Pro who has won nearly $250K on the poker circuit over the last ten years, that he was convicted of 98 charges of drug trafficking in 2004 in a case covered at the time by the Louisville Courier-Journal and WAVE-TV, and he was the subject of significant media coverage over the UAL incident in 2017 make this a case of BLP1E? BlueSalix (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. His crimes aren't particularly notable and neither is his poker playing which was only mediocre with him not playing in the Finals or even semi-final games. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies. Kierzek (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

Huh? Please stop removing cited material from the article - as you did here [2] - about his World Series of Poker involvement and his criminal convictions that is cited to RS. Deprecatory information is not a BLP issue when cited to multiple RS. Stop gaming the AfD. BlueSalix (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As created, the page has the appearance of an attack page: link. Dao was not notable yesterday, and no one would have thought about creating an article on him except for the UA incident. Thus BIOE1 applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Binksternet (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Drdisque - to clarify, you feel the fact he's a World Series of Poker Pro who won $117,000 in 2009, he was convicted of 98 charges of drug trafficking in 2004, and he was the subject of significant media coverage over the UAL incident in 2017 qualify as a case of BLP1E? BlueSalix (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the first two things come nowhere close to WP:GNG. The fact that he didn't have an article until yesterday speaks to that. -Drdisque (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was $117,000 in 2009 which should be apparent on even a cursory look at the article, TonyBallioni. BlueSalix (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I read the article. I was addressing your claim above of $250k over 10 year, which averages out to $25k a year. The article clearly claims total lifetime earnings of $234k, and one year where he earned $117k. That sounds like a bad poker player who had a stroke of luck one year, and is hardly a claim to notability. Again, the crimes aren't notable, just something that caused a stir in the local news. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having a stroke of luck does not disqualify someone from meeting GNG; otherwise there would be many articles (e.g. Jack Whittaker (lottery winner)) that wouldn't exist here. BlueSalix (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikiproject essay on biographical entries for poker players would disagree with you, and those are normally more generous than the GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, epicgenius, you think winning $117K in poker in 2009, being convicted of 98 criminal charges in 2004 in a widely covered case, and the UAL incident, are all a single event? BlueSalix (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no? If the win was nationally covered in 2009 and he was notable enough, we would have had an article about him. If the case was widely noted, of course we'd have an article about him. But this is the first AFD, so obviously no one has raised the "notability" question before. (There's no deletion logs.) By the way, both events fail WP:NOTABILITY. The poker win, while not unsubstantial, does not stand out much either compared to other wins, and the "wide" coverage from the 2004 charges seems to have all been from the past few days. epicgenius (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Taylor Trescott as I, and other editors, have noted, there was serious gaming going on with this AfD. My notes are to let editors who !voted on the basis of the gamed version of the article know the mass deletions have been reverted. Editors deserve to make an informed !vote, not a !vote based on a selective presentation of information that one side in an argument has decided to display through selective obfuscation. I hope you agree. BlueSalix (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No gaming, just valid concerns about BLP violations. My "delete" vote was based on the fuller version of the biography, the one that made me think it should have been speedily deleted as an attack article. Binksternet (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is the "gamed" version? AusLondonder (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the article creator means this: Unfortunately this AfD was heavily gamed - the specific content that would made this not a BLP1E case was deleted immediately after it was opened [7]. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So the article creator is actually urging us to judge the more deletable version of the article! AusLondonder (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

This event is not "highly significant". The Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria was highly significant. AusLondonder (talk) 05:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

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.