Talk:Blackjack Hall of Fame

message: The qualifications for the individuals who have been inducted into the BJ HoF, as currently stated in the entry, are taken from the sources stated in it, i.e. the relevant Blackjack Forum articles, the Las Vegas Sun article, etc. It is well known among the so-called "blackjack community" that there exist many ongoing and intense disputes about the merits of certain  individuals, their worth as "blackjack experts" or "blackjack pros", and their expertise. The relevant Wikipedia entries should NOT become one of the many fields of internet battle and flame wars. 
The description of events and individuals, as  currently formulated, is based on the sources quoted in the entry. There are others, in the same direction. Anyone who wants to submit or edit something in a different direction should substantiate the changes, according to Wiki policy on substantiation and sources. It is important to strive for a neutral point of view. Please, let's work together here. -The Gnome (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then remove the controversial characterizations. The sources you have used are from the very same people making self-promoting claims. That is, you have specifically added POV claims. I have attempted to remove these claims according as per WP NPOV standards and you continue to put them back. Look, this entire page should be removed. BJHOF is an advertising gimmick by a small Southern California casino and has no place in a encylopedia. The 'public' vote was a well-known fraud and the entire list of members for the next five years is already known. But if you are going to keep the page – at least remove the hyped adjectives taken from advertising material. Also, I have already provided you with a reference. Adamar v Campione. (714 A.2d 299, 301 (N.J. 1998.)) Objective3000 (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you dispute the merit of the Blackjack Hall of Fame, in itself, as a genuine event, if you have reason to believe that this is no more than an advertising gimmick ("of the Barona casino"), then you have to prove it -- by citing third party sources. simply dismissing her existing evidence won't do. And your personal testimony, I'm afraid, does not count, no matter how reliable you are or how objective that testimony might be. Again, I remind you that Wikipedia is NOT the place for original research. (You obviously did not check out this link, which I provided once again before.) As to whether, Stanford Wong is a former professional gambler or not, it is up to you to provide evidence that he is not. The evidence so far available indicates that he has been indeed a professional gambler in the past (viz. Blackjack in Asia inter alia). The fact that Wong gave evidence in favor of a casino establishment in court does not affect in the slightest his status as a former professiona gambler. -The Gnome (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  In my experience, "Halls of Fame" are almost always promotional tools by the organization/establishment that is sponsoring them, so saying that the Hall of Fame is an advertising gimmick doesn't really say much.  ;)  Based on my research, the Hall of Fame at the casino is real, and the process used to create it was as described. Based on my own research, the list of inductees looks fairly reasonable, meaning that I've heard of most of the individuals involved, and agree that their accomplishments were notable, and that they are frequently cited in other works about blackjack. If the Hall of Fame already has planned members lined up for the next few years, again, that's not unusual with these kinds of things.  If someone thinks the Hall is a sham, then they are free to create a different Hall of Fame, and if it gets publicized, then it can have an article on Wikipedia too.   If it's really a sham, I'm sure there's a reporter somewhere that would love to report about it, and then once they do, we can include that information here at Wikipedia. But so far all of the major Blackjack publications that do write about these things, that I am aware of, seem to acknowledge that the Hall of Fame is as real as it gets for this particular community.  It's real, it's verifiable, it's notable, and a Wikipedia article about it is appropriate, until and unless sources proving otherwise become available. --Elonka 00:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but this is quite humorous. You said that all of the "major BJ publications" (there aren't any currently) verify that it exists. But, all of these so-called publications were among the nominators and nominees:)  In any case, let me repeat for the fifth time - I never asked that the page be removed as silly, phony and un-encyclopedic as it is. I merely asked that hyped, advertising adjectives not be added to the article. Objective3000 (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I am not aware of such a statement by Wong (i.e. that "he never made more than a couple thousand dollars in his life at BJ"). Could you please provide a specific reference or a link? As to Max Rubin, are you saying that he's never played blackjack as a professional AP? You claim he's always been a losing tourist who went for the comps? Well, once again, you are asked to please back up those claims with some evidence. Contributing your personal experience and first-hand knowledge is valuable but not in Wikipedia! Finally, about the nature of the BJHoF and its selection process. I have no problem with your description of it. So, it's  ot organised by a world sports organisation based in Geneva, so what? The point is, I have not come across any kind of serious disagreement by experts about the inductees' credentials. (Except perhaps from Max Rubin's...) -The Gnome (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Campione v. Adamar, 714 A.2d 299, 306 (N.J. 1998). I have provided this reference THREE times now and yet you continue to demand a reference. This is not my personal knowledge. It is testimony taken under oath. The entire point of his testimony was to prove to the court that there was no reason to assume that Campione would have made money if he had been allowed to play. The casino won. And please do not put words in my mouth. Where did I say Max was a "losing tourist." There is a huge middle ground between a "losing tourist" and a "professional gambler." I do not use hype. I did not try to add "losing tourist" to the article. And I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia. You continue to lecture me on Wiki rules - but you are the one attempting to add advertising hype to this article. Why is it needed? Objective3000 (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Hall of Famers' qualifications

message: I think we may be getting a bit carried away by adding this article to Halls of fame in California, National halls of fame in the United States and Organizations based in San Diego, California. The BJ Hall of Fame is a three-foot display case and a book on a stand in a hallway of a San Diego casino. This isn't the Rock & Roll, or Baseball HoF.:)Objective3000 (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are one hundred percent correct that it is not the Rock & Roll or Baseball HOF. It is the Blackjack Hall of Fame. Why should those be deemed notable and this one shouldn't?47.137.185.72 (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability