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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dee Luong[edit]

Non-notable poker player with no achievments of note. Notability seems to be derived from being the wife of Prahlad Friedman. As such the article fails WP:BIO. – –Lid^(Talk) 22:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, yes she is a mediocre poker player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myheartinchile (talk • contribs) 22:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD has been announced to Wikiproject Poker

Delete fails BIO---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - notable professional sportsman; regularly appears on nationally televised programs in the United States; nom is disruptive as we have well documented articles on many poker players of Luong's stature. Badagnani (talk) 03:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Instead of saying disruptive, please produce at least two articles in reliable sources. She just doesn't meet BIO. being on TV is not a criteria. 2005 (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Disruptive because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? I am not trying to be disruptive, and am only attempting to remove ones that fail the notability policy and have in other cases erred on the side of caution. – –Lid^(Talk) 05:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Badagnani is the creator of the article. He should familiarize himself with both WP:BIO particularly footnote 8 9 (just changed), which reads "Participation in and in most cases winning individual tournaments, except the most prestigious events, does not make non-athletic competitors notable. This includes, but is not limited to, poker, bridge, chess, Magic:The Gathering, Starcraft, etc." This footnote was added specifically to deal with these non-notable players. Nor does she meet the interpretation of BIO by by wikiproject poker.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - See Poker After Dark site. Pretending, or wishing that she were not a regular guest on a syndicated NBC poker television program that has aired every weekday evening for the past year, is not a substitute for actually proving that this individual is not a notable player of this game. Badagnani (talk) 06:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - And Tommy Wang (deleted) made several appearances during Poker Superstars 2, yes she made a single appearance on Poker After Dark but every other player that has appeared on Poker After Dark and has had an article has a pre-existing career or coverage. Ken Light, for example, was on Poker After Dark but we have no article on him because he is simply put a non-notable player. In addition to which claiming she's a "regular guest" is simply false, she appeared in one week. – –Lid^(Talk) 06:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Also: "is not a substitute for actually proving that this individual is not a notable player of this game." is a negative proof logical fallacy asking us to prove that she isn't notable. The proof needs to exist that she is notable through independent coverage or success, not the other way around. – –Lid^(Talk) 07:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The source you provided had me dig deeper... of course, it's not really objective as it is trying to hype the show she is appearing on and it does call her a "rising star." Your contention is that since she appeared on 3 episodes of Poker After Dark. That she is by definition notable. Yet, BIO specifically indicates that poker players are not notable unless they can establish notability through independent sources or have won one of the major tournaments. Now, which is more prestigious, making it to the final table of a WPT event which is aired or paying 20g to participate in a non-notable tv tournament? I think the answer is obvious, making it to the final table of a WPT event which is aired and watched by many more people than Poker After Dark. Yet, WP:BIO, would not recognize a person who makes it to the final table of a WPT event---only the winner of said event. I did do a search on "Dee Luong" Poker on Google and got a few more hits than MrPrada did below... but after looking at 50 of them, I couldn't find any other source that made more than a passing non-notable reference to her.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Making the final table in the 2003 World Series of Poker is scarcely "non-notable," and her career earnings represent about two years worth of a minor-league ballplayer's salary, where appearing in a single game makes that ballplayer notable by default. Mentioning her husband's name is de rigeur when a spouse is notable in his or her own right, but the article does more than that, and I'm curious as to what makes nom think that a fact mentioned a full three months after the article's creation is the reason for its existence. Ravenswing 03:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is precisely non notable to make a final table of a preliminary WSOP event. There will be about ~~300~~ 500 such people this year alone. It means nothing at all in terms of notability. if it did, we would have about ~~3000~~ 4000 more poker player articles. (Perhaps you mis read it to think it was meaning the main event of the WSOP in 2003; it does not.) 2005 (talk)
  - What 2005 said, if you wish to see just how many people make final tables at a WSOP in a given year take a look at 2007 World Series of Poker results. This is why note 8 was added to WP:BIO, to prevent excessive additions of any professional poker player for trivial reasons (i.e. made a WSOP final table). Being a pro is not the criteria alone for meeting notability, and it should never be used as such. – –Lid^(Talk) 05:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As for "I'm curious as to what makes nom think that a fact mentioned a full three months after the article's creation is the reason for its existence" I place on that, in my opinion and WP:BIO, the article shouldn't have existed in the first place and has lasted this long because poker notability is a niche that can cause outside observers to view non-notable achievements to being notable. – –Lid^(Talk) 05:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep per above, a suggestion to the WP:Poker editors, instead of relying on pokerstars.net player bios, you might want to expand to a few other sources (see here, which includes ESPN, Bluff Magazine, Pokernews.com, and Cardplayer.com, all with nontrivial mentions of Luong), that might avert these articles being sent here in the futre. MrPrada (talk) 04:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- C'mon, all of those have very trivial mentions of her. Wiki Poker project editors do know the difference. The completely worthless mention in Google news would never be used to justify an article. 2005 (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-trivial is "moved in before the flop" "Huck Seed's girlfriend" and "Cyndy Violette is all-in with KK against Dee Luong's JJ"? Really? – –Lid^(Talk) 05:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In an effort to establish notability, MrPrada has decided to attack the WP:Poker editors. Mr Prada suggests that the people who edit the poker articles should do more to instead of relying on pokerstars.net player bios, [WP:Poker editors] might want to expand to a few other sources ... that might avert these articles being sent here in the futre. {sic} Er project poker editors have no more control over vanity articles than any other segment of the wikipedia community---unfortunately, there are lot of non-notables who believe that mere participation in a tournament makes them notable. When a person is non-notable, the editors at WP:Poker do not have the power to delete them without coming here. So, MrPrada please explain exactly how people who have never edited the article can be held responsible for failing to include verifiable reliable sources for a player they do not deem to be notable in the first place?? For a person who fails both BIO and the unofficial standards established by wp:POKER. Of course, MrPrada contends that the link he provided to FOUR articles which reference her all with nontrivial mentions of Luong. One of those four sources is an magazine that you have to pay for. The other three sources, quoted the entirety, of the non-trivial references to Luong are:
  - such as "Cyndy Violette is all-in with KK against Dee Luong's JJ,---should be noted, Cindy is notable.
  - My buddy Huck Seed got his former girlfriend, Dee Luong, into poker, and she eventually rose through the ranks to play $50-$100 and higher limit hold'em. Dee is a well-known player at Bellagio today. Cardplayer magazine blog (not a reliable source) is merely mentioning the 1996 WSOP Main Event champion's girlfriend who plays at the 50-100 level.
  - A Ladies Night, of course, with Jennifer Harman, Dee Luong, Cyndy Violette, Clonie Gowen, Vanessa Rousso and Evelyn Ng.
- That's it. Period. I would not consider ANY of those citations to be anything but trivial and failing to establish any sort of notable.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She is marginal but given the very mistaken notions above, it's important we don't keep an article for obviously incorrect reasons. She doesn't have the coverage as the focus of an article in reliable sources. 2005 (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. $90K in tournament winnings (i.e. no wins) just doesn't cut it. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I concur with Ravenswing. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 05:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, I wasn't aware of this footnote. Probably doesn't have sufficient notability then. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ridiculous discussion that suits German wikipedia where a lot of people like me have stopped writing articles after articles like "Draw" and "Call" were deleted and a deletion of "Pokerstars" was seriously considered after some dork suspected they want to make money so that's "advertising". Dee Luong is not a great tournament player but she beat Men Ngueyn at heads-up and anyone with a Poker after Dark page is notable [1]

German.Knowitall (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it seems like some of the Germen users made the site donkpedia.net as a reaction to that kind of thing, a great many of the English written articles on poker were by the former admin User:Essexmutant, who quit the project do to some of the same objections which can be read on his resignation letter found on his userpage. Dee Luong should be a known name for anyone who follows poker. at least NBC thought so. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡ ^Talk 22:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The PAD appearance has been brought up before but the line between "having a PAD page" and "being a notable player with sources" do not cross. Your argument that this is similar to the German wikipedias articles on call or draw being deleted is hyperbole and greatly overstates the "importance" of Luong. If the deletion discussion were be about trying to delete Chip Reese or Doyle Brunson then the comparison would be apt. – –Lid^(Talk) 22:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, having a bio on a game show does not make her anymore notable than the contestants on Survivor. And most of the contestants on Survivor don't get one---and they are seen by a great many more people than PAD! (It should be noted that game show contestants have routinely been deleted as a matter of practice here because they aren't notable---despite having a bio on their respective game show.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's obvious that her importance isn't as great as Chip Reese or Doyle Brunson, she it still is a notable poker professional. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡ ^Talk 22:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Chip and Doyle wasn't a comparison to her, it was a comparison to trying to delete a core article on poker like calling: a foolish and impossible move. I wasn't saying "because she isn't as notable as Chip Reese she isn't notable", which would be ridiculous for me to say and assume. – –Lid^(Talk) 01:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dee Luong is a recognized professional poker player and has been for years, her participation on NBC's Poker After Dark wasn't the result of lottery or that of a contest winner such as Ken Light who appeared on the show I would invite people to read her profile place on the Official website for the national broadcast show here, it is true that Dee Luong is more of a cash game professional then a tournament player but she gained notability prior the existed of PAD Competed in the NBC 2006 National Heads-Up Championship again invited on the show as a recognized professional and NOT the result of contest or lottery,[2] now there maybe people who may not care for either of these programs, but the fact is both Poker After Dark and the National Heads-Up Championship are the only two shows on any of the national 3 major broadcasters (e.g. ABC,CBS,NBC) that still air poker related content.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡ ^Talk 22:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the profile, and it usesthe phrase "up and coming". The problem with this is that that PAD was over a year ago and her notability has not changed, at all. There are many "up and comers" on the poker circuit but they lack articles simply because the notability isn't there (see: nearly every internet pro). This case is no different, especially as the "cash game specialist" just means that she usually plays cash, it doesn't include something like "she crusbes the highest stakes cash games" or even that she beats her own cash games. The notability simply isn't there, just the name that seems to be due to "Huck Seed's girlfriend" and "Prahlad Friedman's" wife. – –Lid^(Talk) 01:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sirex, could you point to what part of BIO she fulfills? Or what part of the Wikiproject Poker guidelines, that you participated on, that she meets?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting? There has certainly been a thorough discussion, and there obviously is no consensus, with opinions split in half. Close the discussion as no consensus. 2005 (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I asked Fabric about why he relisted it? I think if he doesn't like the idea of closing with no consensus, he should then !vote.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoning is here for anyone who is interested.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for not satisfying WP:Poker criteria. References above are only trivial mentions and not assertions of notability. Spell4yr (talk) 05:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability well demonstrated by the sources provided above. Ford MF (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have read all of the above and followed the links therein as well as the citations in the article yet still I cannot see how Ms Luong meets either WP:BIO or the unofficial standards established by Wikiproject Poker nancy ^(talk) 10:11, 12 June 2008 (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.