Talk:Julian Gardner (poker player)

message: :Image:Juliangardner.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Juliangardner.jpg

message: Can anyone provide a source for this or even an explanation as to why this is of encyclopedic value? Even if it is true, WP:NOTEVERYTHING applies. A player's personal preference towards which events to attend, unless extremely noteworthy for some reason, goes beyond providing a summary of this person and into listing every fact about him. Please comment here to establish a consensus on this. If is no disagreement with removing this information within a few days, I'll remove it. ~ RobTalk 02:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a biography, and it offers insight into the player's state of mind. BMK (talk) 02:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Biographies still cannot be indiscriminate collections of information. Could you provide an example of who that type of information would be useful to, so I can better understand where you're coming from? Also as a note, a citation is needed as per WP:UNSOURCED at a bare minimum. Even if consensus is reached that this is relevant information, it will likely still be removed if no reliable source is found. ~ RobTalk 03:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Disclaimer: I was notified by Rob about this discussion, but otherwise don't know him from Adam. It's unsourced and a borderline derogatory violation of WP:BLP IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see it as either indiscriminate or derogatory. It sounds like a damn smart strategy to me. BMK (talk) 03:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: And Rob, please read WP:CANVASS and don't do that again. BMK (talk) 03:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, take it to WP:BLPN and see what the mavens there say about it - but state the disagreement as neutrally as possible, please. BMK (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

text: Regarding the note you tacked on to your first comment above: Please notify ALL editors who might be interested in the outcome, not just SOME editors. And please don't add to old comments after they've been responded to. BMK (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Rob left a message on my page but it's not WP:CANVASS. Canvassing is leaving a certain type of message designed to sway the outcome, not just saying "hey you might be familiar with this article; your input is appreciated." My contribution to the AFD indicates nothing one way or the other about how I may feel about this content. Incidentally, I support removing this trivial information.  It should be boldly removed and then if consensus can be gained as to why it should be returned, then it can be added back. —МандичкаYO 😜 03:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:CANVASS. It is not only a neutral message that's required, the people who receive it must not be selected for their probable response.  It seems that Rob selected wisely. BMK (talk) 04:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I notified literally every person who has been involved in the deletion discussion (i.e. every single editor on the site who has shown a recent interest in this article). I even noted this in the notes that I left on user talk pages, if I recall correctly. This is not WP:CANVASS. Please attempt to distinguish between canvassing and alerting potentially interested editors in the future before throwing around accusations. ~ RobTalk 04:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

text: I boldly removed that unsourced info by the way. I agree with Clarityfiend above that it's borderline derogatory. —МандичкаYO 😜 03:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to revert this so as to avoid exacerbating the issue, but just as a note, I disagree with boldly editing items of contention. Two people boldly editing items of contention is just another way of saying two people edit-warring. Since it's not a blatant violation of WP:BLP, I disagree that it needed immediate removal. ~ RobTalk 04:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Bolding removing unsourced possibly contentious information in a BLP is not only OK, it's recommended. BMK, as I said, there is nothing to indicate he was canvassing. All I said in the AfD was "weak keep" because it seemed like he was pretty successful. —МандичкаYO 😜 04:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

text: IMO, it implied he is either cheap or has financial problems and cannot afford to travel to qualification tournaments. Or that he's a diva and thinks he should have everything paid for him as a celebrity. Again, that is my impression. If it was sourced with him offering a reasonable explanation, I wouldn't have a problem with it. —МандичкаYO 😜 04:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I agree that we'd need a source to really clear up whether it's derogative or not. ~ RobTalk 04:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, good removal of borderline derogatory unverified content as per WP:BLP  Govindaharihari (talk) 05:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if youre all still discussing this. Noticed it at BLPN. Simplest solution is just to keep it out. This is in no way vital to the article. Its unsourced. And some editors are concerned that it may be a slight at Gardner's character (of which there is no apparent reliable source). DaltonCastle (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preference towards traveling only to tournaments he's qualified for online