Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Schlesinger
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Jonesey95 (talk | contribs) at 00:17, 23 May 2024 (Fix Linter errors.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
- 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]
- I don’t know who added the article, but am a bit surprised as to the deletion suggestion. I don’t clearly understand the rules for notability. But, there are a large number of WP pages that are related to Blackjack, and Schlesinger is a legend in the field having edited about half of the respected books on the subject, and having been mentioned in nearly all of them, as well as having had scores of articles published on the subject and editing for accuracy the published articles of many other Blackjack writers. I realize that Lady Gaga gets a lot more hits than Herbert Hoover in Google News, but don’t think that’s the arbitrator of notability.:) Seriously, in numerous scientific fields, a search for the acknowledged top expert in the field in Google News will probably get no hits. regards, Objective3000 (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right. You don't understand the rules. They're actually very simple. It's not about fame. It's not about importance. It's not about Google hits. We're writing an encyclopaedia here, not name checking the famous, the important, and the expert. In fact, it's not about anything at all that you brought up. It's about whether this person's life and works have been documented in depth, in published works that are independent of the subject, meaning that a neutral and verifiable biographical encyclopaedia article, free from original research, can be written (based upon such documentation) about this person's life and works. An encyclopaedia systematizes knowledge. Does the knowledge of this person's life and works exist, written down, fact checked, reviewed, and published?
TransporterMan looked for things that documented this person's life and works and came up empty handed. The article doesn't cite anything that documents this person's life and works, and was badly written. You haven't pointed to anything that documents this person's life and works. Prove that this isn't all just made up information about a person that whose life and works are not known and publicly and properly recorded and published, by pointing to where this person's life and works have been properly documented and published outwith Wikipedia. That's your only valid counterargument. All of the rest, including every point that you made, is irrelevant. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I’m not the one that said it was about fame or Google hits. That’s the concept that I was criticizing. Also, I don’t understand how the fact that the article is poorly written is relevant, and was not mentioned in the deletion request. I agree the author did a poor job. The question is: Does it belong in WP. There are numerous WP articles on Blackjack luminaries. The only ones that fit your description are the ones that were publicity hounds that drank/drugged themselves to death or found some other way to capitalize on their background, often largely invented, or authored “pulp fiction.” With all due respect, it seems to me that you and TransporterMan are arguing the “fame” angle (e.g. not in Google News), not I. I am arguing the “knowledge” and usefulness angle. I think WP should be about knowledge – not celebrity. And certainly not about some guy that played Blackjack or was once on a quiz show about BJ, or anything else about the current concentration on fleeting celebrity.
I have no vested interest in this particular article. But, most of the articles about people in this field are far better candidates for removal. Should I add them all to the deletion page? If you want to delete a Blackjack article about someone known for his work in the field by everyone in the field, let us delete the articles about the players that have stuck their names in WP first. I would hope that WP is about actual knowledge, not popular knowledge. Regards, Objective3000 (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thought I’d add some refs. http://www.bjrnet.com/member/bjapr/Pubs_BJF.htm 13 of numerous articles by Schlesinger. From The Encyclopedia of Casino Twenty-One, a few of a couple dozen references to Schlesinger:
http://www.bjrnet.com/member/bjapr/I.htm
http://www.bjrnet.com/member/bjapr/D.htm
http://www.bjrnet.com/member/bjapr/S.htm#SCORE
http://www.bjrnet.com/member/bjapr/F.htm#Fab4
- “Isn’t irony ironic” (unattributed). Sorry to go on about this. But, I like analysis. And I adore irony. I also adore WP. I like its rules, as strange as they sometimes appear. Let me talk a bit about irony.
The “find sources” header of this page has links to news, books and scholar. Who cares about images? TRANSPORTERMAN says refs in news about Schlesinger are rare. But, he didn’t mention the books or scholar links. I tend to think that those are more important. After all, is Augustus Caesar is Google News that often? But, that’s just me.
If you click on the links that he ignored, books and scholar, you will find a very large number of refs. Hardly surprising as Schlesinger in mentioned in nearly every decent book on BJ in the last couple decades. In fact, if you have an extensive library of such books (as many of us do in the field), I would bet that Thorp, Wong and Schlesinger are the top three names in those books, in no certain order. (The fourth most reffed name is well down the list. And, come to think of it, it may be me. Who cares?)
As for the irony, David Eppstein has voted DELETE. But, he also has a personal WP page, and I can’t find “news” links about him either. He would claim that the article should be deleted for lack of resources, when his article has the same lack as stated at the top of the page. Let me go further. David’s article says that he is a professor at UC Irvine. The most famous of all BJ luminaries is Edward O. Thorp, an ex-professor at the same university, well-known for his work in the markets, and a well-known philanthropist. But, Dr. Thorp said about Don Schlesinger “Blackjack Attack is a valuable resource for serious blackjack players. It represents the distilled wisdom of twenty-five years from a master teacher and player." -- Edward O. Thorp.
David, please do not take this as a criticism and I don’t mean this to be personal in any way whatsoever and am not suggesting that your page be deleted. We probably have much in common as, looking at your page, I knew John Carr (one of the first presidents of the ACM, back in the 50s, that you belong to) and I gave a silly lecture at U of P on the subject of Monte Carlo techniques when you were three years old. (I’m getting older as we speak.) Not that I had any idea what I was talking about. Just find it humorous. But, you might check with Thorp about Schlesinger.
I’m not voting on this issue as the fact that I’m the only one here that is in the BJ field would probably be a violation of WP:COI. And, I’ve been told that I don’t understand the rules.:) But, it seems rather strange that people that have no knowledge of the field are voting on the relevance of one of the most respected researchers in the field. The perils of democracy.:)
Incidentally, I find it odd that no one has mentioned this deletion request on any BJ related page. Objective3000 (talk) 03:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- “Isn’t irony ironic” (unattributed). Sorry to go on about this. But, I like analysis. And I adore irony. I also adore WP. I like its rules, as strange as they sometimes appear. Let me talk a bit about irony.
- Sorry, I’m not the one that said it was about fame or Google hits. That’s the concept that I was criticizing. Also, I don’t understand how the fact that the article is poorly written is relevant, and was not mentioned in the deletion request. I agree the author did a poor job. The question is: Does it belong in WP. There are numerous WP articles on Blackjack luminaries. The only ones that fit your description are the ones that were publicity hounds that drank/drugged themselves to death or found some other way to capitalize on their background, often largely invented, or authored “pulp fiction.” With all due respect, it seems to me that you and TransporterMan are arguing the “fame” angle (e.g. not in Google News), not I. I am arguing the “knowledge” and usefulness angle. I think WP should be about knowledge – not celebrity. And certainly not about some guy that played Blackjack or was once on a quiz show about BJ, or anything else about the current concentration on fleeting celebrity.
- You're right. You don't understand the rules. They're actually very simple. It's not about fame. It's not about importance. It's not about Google hits. We're writing an encyclopaedia here, not name checking the famous, the important, and the expert. In fact, it's not about anything at all that you brought up. It's about whether this person's life and works have been documented in depth, in published works that are independent of the subject, meaning that a neutral and verifiable biographical encyclopaedia article, free from original research, can be written (based upon such documentation) about this person's life and works. An encyclopaedia systematizes knowledge. Does the knowledge of this person's life and works exist, written down, fact checked, reviewed, and published?
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in the absence of the reliable sources about him or his books that would allow him to pass WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google books has 55 hits for Don Schlesinger and most of them are referring to the person on this page. This seems to be sufficient second party hits for notability: he really is a big name in gambling analysis. Francis Bond (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2010 (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]
- 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]
(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]
- 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]
(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]
- "Keep" by nominator. Objective3000 has really done good work here. I concur that the information ought to be worked into the article, but listing it here is enough to make me reverse my position, too. (I'm not "withdrawing" the nomination, as I feel that would be inappropriate since there is still at least one "delete" !vote standing, but I am most definitely changing my recommendation from "delete" to "keep".) Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would likely be willing to change my !vote allowing you to withdraw once the information is incorporated into the article so I can see how much of the article's content is actually properly sourced. I'm still a bit worried that only the third paragraph can be well sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 3 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.