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 keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Author of a single gaming book and website. Lots of references to, and praise for, his book is available in a Google search, but I could find little or nothing from reliable sources on a quick scan-through. Google News search on <"don schlesinger" blackjack> since 2004 gets only one hit, and it a mere passing reference. Non-notable. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Nominator now recommends "keep"; see below. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

e.g. Credit goes to Don Schlesinger, author of Blackjack Attack (RGB Publishing), for the discovery that the indices in the first 18 lines of the table above ..

*Delete. Miserably fails WP:BK. He is not a notable author and does not have a notable book. His 55 GHits are pathetically small for a writer, and the people who published his book, "RGE Publishing, Ltd," barely do any better with 86 GHits [1]. In short, he may be "known" to a few people sitting around a table playing cards, but he is not notable in the world at large, which is what WP:BK requires. Qworty (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a sad commentary. “he may be ‘known’ to a few people sitting around a table playing cards” OK, you don’t like gambling analysis. But, why would you belittle the numerous PHDs that find this a worthy study and its relationship to the financial markets and human behavior, or the fact that Schlesinger also has written extensively on financial markets, closely related to gambling? And why would you use a Google search that included quotes and LTD when it is not a UK corporation, seriously limiting the results of an organization that has been famous for decades? Remove the LTD, and I get 5,500 hits, not 86, even in quotes. (155,000 without quotes.) This is a decades old publishing house famous for many wonderful publications. And why would you use a word like “pathetically?” And why would you consider researchers in a niche area to be non-notable? How many nominees for the Noble prize in esoteric areas are known by the “world at large” as defined by Google News? Seriously folks, is WP an encyclopedia, or a gossip column? Is the research here so bad that we simply accept poorly phrased Google searches as a reliable source? Why not just remove WP and tell people to do Google searches? Sorry for being so blunt. But, a very poorly phrased Google search is not evidence of anything. TRANSPORTERMAN gave me something to think about. With all due respect, this edit just seems mean-spirited.Objective3000 (talk) 03:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You haven't referenced a single policy. Take a look at WP:AUTHOR. Take a look at WP:BK. Take a look at WP:BIO. Take a look at WP:RS. Take a look at WP:V. If you have an argument to make for how this guy might satisfy any of those policies, then you have something meaningful to say to us. If you can't state how he is notable according to these policies, then you have nothing at all to say that's meaningful. If you think this guy is so great, why don't you go build a website that endlessly worships him? It still won't meet the standards of a source we can use here, of course, but you might feel some satisfaction. You're like a guy who bursts into a courtroom shouting invectives and saying that the lawyers and judge don't know what they're talking about--well, you're never going to get anywhere being that way. Brush up on policy first, then come back and make a reasoned argument based on policy. Also, you REALLY need to go read WP:NOTDIR and WP:OUT, as you seem to think that an encyclopedia is nothing more than a repository for every obscure, unsubstantiated factoid that ever existed. Qworty (talk) 05:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AUTHOR states: “The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.” Indeed, he is referenced in dozens of books by other authors. As I said above, he is one of the three most referenced authors in the field. WP:BK is not relevant. He is not known for writing a book. He was well-known long before writing a book for decades of research, numerous articles and work on others' books. That's why he is mentioned so often in the Encyclopedia of Twenty-One. He happens to have also written a book. I don’t think that is a disqualification. WP:BIO states: “A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.” Again, his work is used in dozens of published books and hundreds of articles. WP:V is easy if you do a proper search. Now, may I suggest you read WP:CIV and refrain from uncivil language like “why don't you go build a website that endlessly worships him?” Objective3000 (talk) 12:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Okay, now you're getting somewhere. You're halfway there. You're asserting notability, but you're not yet demonstrating it. What you need to do next is show us all of the specific sources so that we can evaluate them. Qworty (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here are a few books that mention Schlesinger. You may think that he is only known by "a few people sitting around a table playing cards," but nine of these authors have pages in Wiki and ten are or have been professors.
The Theory of Blackjack by Prof. Peter A. Griffin
Repeat Until Rich by Josh Axelrad (Reviewed in March in the New York Times)
Blackjack: A Professional Reference, the Encyclopedia of Casino Twenty-One by Michael Dalton
The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic by Dr. Richard Arnold Epstein
The Doctrine of Chances: Probabilistic Aspects of Gambling By Dr. Stewart N. Ethier
Finding the edge: mathematical analysis of casino games By Dr. Olaf Vancura, Dr. Judy A. Cornelius, Dr. William R. Eadington
Burning the Tables in Las Vegas by Ian Andersen
Professional Blcakjack by Dr. Stanford Wong
Risk and Reward: The Science of Casino Blackjack by Dr. N. Richard Werthamer
Knock-Out Blackjack by Dr. Olaf Vancura, Ken Fuchs
Basic Blackjack by Dr. Stanford Wong
The Blackjack Zone by Dr. Eliot Jacobsen
Legends of Blackjack by Kevin Blackwood and Larry Barker
Play Blackjack Like the Pros by Kevin Blackwood
Blackjack autumn: a true tale of life, death, and splitting tens by Barry Meadow
Blackjack: Play Like the Pros by John Bukofsky
Frugal Video Poker by Jean Scott
Dynamic Blackjack by Dr. Richard Reid
Blackjack Blueprint by Rick Blaine
Blackbelt in Blackjack by Arnold Snyder
Blackjack Diary by Stuart Perry
Beyond Counting by Dr. James Grosjean
Hollywood Blackjack by Dave Stann
The Pro's Guide to Spanish 21 and Australian Pontoon by Katarina Walker
Bootlegger's 200 proof blackjack by Mike Turner
You've Got Heat by Barfarkel
Mensa Guide to Casino Gambling: Winning Ways by Andrew Brisman
Silver Fox Blackjack System by Ralph Stricker
Get the Edge at Blackjack by John May
Another few that briefly acknowledge Schlesinger:
Gambling 102: The Best Stratgies for All Casino Games by Michael Shackleford
Gambling Theory and Other Topics by Mason Malmuth
Blackjack for Blood by Bryce Carlson
Extra Stuff by Dr. Peter Griffin
Blackjack Essays by Mason Malmuth
Gambling for Winners: Your Hard-Headed, No B.S. Guide to Gaming by Richard Stooker
Fundamentals of "21" by Mason Malmuth, Lynne Loomis
Objective3000 (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now give us all of the links and/or page numbers for these and all of the specific quotations that establish notability. You can even start adding them to the article and improving it now, before the AfD closes. See how easy it is? I'll even throw in some archived newspaper articles free of charge [2] Who knows--if you do a good enough job on the article, you might even get me and a few others to change our votes. Qworty (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Easy? There are 38 books here. You asked for sources. I gave you sources. Now you want links, page numbers and quotes. And what will you demand after that? Your comments clearly indicate disdain for the subject area. I have work I have to do. I didn't add this article. I just think it is a poor nomination for removal.Objective3000 (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) After that, I will demand that the article be kept. You must assume good faith. I don't have feelings one way or another about the subject matter. I didn't add the article either, and I have work to do too. This is an all-volunteer project. If you believe the article should be saved, then present the documentation that will save it, and it will be saved. If you have 38 quotes with links and/or page numbers, the article will be a slam-dunk KEEP. Hell, five good ones would do the trick. Qworty (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might reread WP:AOBF:). I will assume good faith and give you a half-dozen, since you requested five. I will include publisher info as you have criticized a publisher.
Repeat Until Rich: A Professional Card Counter's Chronicle of the Blackjack Wars By Josh Axelrad. Penguin Press (the largest trade book publisher in the world, overtaking Random House in 2009 according to Wikipedia.) "Throughout my career and in preparing these pages I drew on the research and writings of Ed Thorp, Arnold Snyder, Stanford Wong, Don Schlesinger, James Grosjean, and Ken Uston."
The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic by Dr. Richard Arnold Epstein. Published by Academic Press, part of Reed Elsevier, a global publisher and information provider,listed on several of the world's major stock exchanges according to Wikipedia. In the index, Don Schlesinger is reffed on pages 267-268, 271-273, and 275-276. A quote doesn't do this justice as these are long math discussions on optimal betting theory and Kelly Criterion, including references to the Illustrious 18 and SCORE (Standard Comparison Of Risk and Expectation) two terms coined by Schlesinger and formulae difficult to render.
The Doctrine of Chances: Probabilistic Aspects of Gambling By Prof. Stewart N. Ethier Publisher: Springer Science+Business Media. With 37,000 titles, Springer is a global publishing company which publishes books, e-books and peer-reviewed journals in science, technical and medical (STM) publishing according to Wikipedia. Numerous refs. The index shows Schlesinger on pages viii, 239, 682-684, 686, 687. You can find the quotes on Google Books.
Risk and Reward: The Science of Casino Blackjack by Dr. N. Richard Werthamer. Publisher is also Springer. Google books shows Schlesinger mentioned on pages 65, 84, 35, vi, 97, 66, 128, and 89.
Knock-Out Blackjack by Dr. Olaf Vancura, Ken Fuchs. Huntington Press. The index shows Schlesinger refs on pages 15, 82, 142, 155, 156. The first ref is in the Historical Perspective chapter: "In 1986, Don Schlesinger (ref to a magazine article) was the first to exhaustively evaluate the relative merits of memorizing the card-counting entries associated with each of the many possible strategic plays...." I believe the other quotes can be found in Google Books.
Play Blackjack Like the Pros by Kevin Blackwood. Publisher: HarperCollins. HarperCollins dates back to 1819 according to Wikipedia. The index shows refs to Schlesinger on pages 68, 104, 147. Sample quote: "The biggest reason to form a blackjack team lies in increased yield. Don Schlesinger calculated that adding one spotter can increase your profits by 76 percent and two spotters can potentially push it up by 132 percent."
Objective3000 (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Objective3000's evidence should be compelling to the critics here. Within the blackjack world Schlesinger's notability wouldn't seriously be questioned in the manner we've seen -- not that there's anything wrong with questioning it. That said, the article as written doesn't make the strongest case possible for its own inclusion and could stand to be wholly redone. Note to self, Objective3000 or anyone else who cares.Paleoriffic (talk) 03:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Changing vote to Keep based on Objective3000's sources. Somebody should now work them into the article. Qworty (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the top of WP:AfD: "Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate:
For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." So, tag the article.Objective3000 (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to tag the article if its problems aren't fixed after the AfD closes (and a keep closure looks very likely at this point). I'd be happier if the problems were fixed with as much energy as has already gone into finding the sources here, so that I can withdraw my delete !vote and the AfD can close sooner. But if you think I'm keeping it a delete for now out of pique that the article isn't being fixed more quickly, you're misunderstanding: I'm keeping it a delete for now because until the sources are actually used as sources, it's difficult for me to tell how much the article really passes WP:V, and whether the part that passes is detailed enough to justify keeping the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2011 (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.