Contents 1 Proposed Notability Criteria 1.1 Support 1.2 Oppose 1.3 Neutral 2 Marking as rejected 3 New Proposal

[edit] Proposed Notability Criteria

Neither notability criteria, nor any other kind of guidelines on Wikipedia, are created through voting on them.

This discussion has been archived. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Note: This discussion was moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker Tally (9/6/2) Please indicate your support or opposition to the criteria here: [edit] Support Support Balloonman (talk) 06:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Support 2005 (talk) 08:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Support Vicius (talk) 05:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Support Alan (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Support Horrorshowj (talk) Support --Crazy4metallica (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Support ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 05:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Support Kymacpherson (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Support AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC) [edit] Oppose Oppose I am against the concept of "inherent" notability, for two reasons: 1) I think it leads to too many articles written without, and surviving AfD without, having any substantial secondary sources, and 2) keeping track of the inherent notability criteria of each narrow field of knowledge makes it too hard to edit WP consistently (is a poker-playing writer subject to the inherent notability requirements that apply to proker players or to writers?). I think the existing, source-based criteria in WP:BIO apply fine to all people, poker players included. All that said, I don't think there will ever be a case where anyone qualifying under Baloonman's proposal would not have sources that would qualify them under WP:BIO (which I guess makes the poker-specific guideline unnecessary) UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC) The criteria are really intended to help define what is NOT notable. Namely online poker players, people who have "played at the highest level of their" sport, and people who made the money in a random tournament. We set the criteria high so that the odds are there will be supporting documentation for them.Balloonman (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Oppose I am not opposed to the idea of notability guidelines. However, the question of notability for poker players is hotly contested and debated in the poker world, and we could bring that here. One of the key reasons, for example, that I oppose the proposal above is that it heavily favors tournament notoriety over cash game success. Mainstream culture does this due to most televised poker ([High Stakes Poker] in the USA being the noted exception) is tournaments. If we are going to develop these criteria, they should include criteria for cash game players (e.g., at least five documented appearances in the Big Game in Bobby's room). Also, keep in mind that the poker world news coverage is struggling hard with the problem of so many online players who have taken the live poker world by storm. There are more and more of these coming up the ranks, and the number of notable players could easily become unwieldy. Think about this: can you, as an avid poker fan, name even half of the WSoP and WPT winners? There are lot of one-hit-wonders in there. -- bkuhn 20:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC) It would be impossible to define a definition for a cash game player that wouldn't be covered in entirety by WP:BIO. There simply is no standard to judge cash game players. Those who do become notable, will be covered by verifiable sources. Five documented appearances in Bobby's room doesn't make one notable. It could simply be the sign of somebody with a lot of money and no brains. Since (by definition) there are no events for cash games to gain notability, notability for cash game players rests entirely upon verifiable secondary sources. Any criterion we might try to come up with will have to be verifiable.Balloonman 05:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Oppose. I oppose this proposal, as it tries to create a notability guideline that is less restrictive than the general notability guideline on WP:N. Inherent notability is only appropriate in the most rarest of cases. Poker players certainly don't qualify. Please also note that a straw poll on a wikiproject is not an acceptable way of proposing new guidelines. Please see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Comment and Question Thanks for your input here. I don't think this was intended to be a straw poll. I think it was intended to be a discussion of a proposed notability criterion, and the people who would care about that the most would be most likely to find that discussion here on the talk page for the poker wikiproject. Also, I'm not sure I entirely understand your comments about inherent notability. Is there a link to a guideline about inherent notability you can point to here? I'm not sure I understand the comment, "Poker players certainly don't qualify" either. (It seems to me that poker players would be as likely to qualify for anything as anyone else, but that's why I'm asking if you could expand your comments.) Thanks again! Rray (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Response. Several people have tried to establish guidelines for inherent notability, but they have been rejected because there is so little support for inherent notability on Wikipedia. But in general, geographical locations like towns/cities are inherently notable, but pretty much nothing else is. As for the way this guideline has been proposed, you should note that it is of interest to all those who develop the notability guidelines, not just those with an interest in poker. The guideline should be created in its own project page (e.g: Wikipedia:Notability (poker players)), it should be tagged with {{proposed}}, it should be added to Category:Wikipedia notability, and it should be added to the "Active proposals" section of {{IncGuide}}. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 11:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC) I have now moved this proposal to a its own page and tagged/categorized it as required. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Response actually, it doesn't attempt to establish a criteria that is less restrictive, in fact, I would argue that this is more restrictive than the level most projects look at notability. In order to qualify, you would have to be one of 29 Poker Hall of Famers, one of a few hundred top tournament winners, or one of the top finalist at a final table. Think about it rationally, can you imagine anybody who fits one of the above criteria as NOT passing notability? What we are really doing is defining how we interpret the statement "played at the highest level of their sport." "notability is only appropriate in the most rarest of cases. Poker players certainly don't qualify." Um, why? How does such a comment make any sense at all when the guideline says ANY athlete who has played at a pro level is likely to get an article? Thousands of athletes who may have played one game get an article, but a guideline that is far far far more restrictive and says nobody but about three dozen more people are able to automatically be deemed noteable (though they still might not get articles), THAT is opposed??? Good grief, how can you even make your comment in this context, let alone justify such a contrntion? The opposition to this proposal is half the reason it is needed. These are not a class of people that deserve to be held in contempt. 2005 (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC) This proposal is in no way more restrictive. The proposal assigns inherent notability to the people who play at the highest level of poker, and allows the general notability criteria to handle the rest. But this inherent notability assigned to the top players is inherently less restrictive than the general notability guideline. There is simply no need for this special exception, as anyone who meets those criteria will be covered in plenty of secondary sources. That makes this proposed guideline nothing more than instruction creep. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 11:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC) It obviously isn't CREEP. If you think so, then go oppose the criteria for athlets and porn stars and everybody else. It's OBVIOUSLY not CREEP, so let's focus on something serious. The point of the guideline is in part to allow EIGHT more articles on hall of fame members and a couple dozen or so people who died years, and now are included in innumberable places with a few sentences about them, but no or only one strong secondary source with an article about them. The parallel is exactly like a MVP baseball player from 1910, who today has no major articles on him but is secondarily mentioned thousands of times and stat pages exist on him all over the place too. 2005 (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC) It is much stricter than the guidelines that sports has used which is used to imbue professional atheletes or people who play at the highest level of their sport as notable. Per that guideline, which is the one usually cited for poker players, anybody who plays at the WSOP/WPT would be notable because that is the highest level of Poker. But that is clearly not the case. Wikiproject Song guideline deems a song as notable if it "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart." The poker analog to that would be "has won any major tournament." This would open up a lot of people who have won "major" tournaments such a World Poker Open, Superbowl of Poker, Aussie Millions---or any number of other "major" tournaments. Song also read, "Has won or placed in a major music competition." We give specific criteria for our analog. Martial arts has this for schools/styles "Large number of students." Then there are the NASCAR Standards. They are good for the most part, but have some loose criteria as well. I suggest you re-read the notability sub-guidelines, as they now all specifically require the general notability guideline to be met first, in all cases. This is a recent change that has happened in the last 2 months. Also I'm not sure what sport notability guideline you are referring to. Do you mean Wikipedia:Notability (sports)? If so, you should note that that guideline was rejected by the community, for the same reason that this one will be.—gorgan_almighty (talk) 11:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Main page of Bio-subsection on athletes reads "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis." We are rejecting this criteria as it is too liberal of a stance that allows garbage in---and everytime there is an AfD over a non-notable poker player we have to explain how this policy does not work in relationship to poker players.Balloonman (talk) 09:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Also remember, the very concept of notability is a guideline. Notability is NOT a policy, we are trying to reach a consensus as to what we, as the wiki-poker playing community, deem as inherently notable achievements. If you think of the above isn't notable, I challenge you to take them to AfD. I'll even help you find some.Balloonman (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Comment: The idea isn't really to make notability that is less restrictive but to add some standards and point out where there are exceptions per WP:BIO, for an example people who only cashed in a couple of time in the WSOP and won 1st place winning $55k in a lesser poker event, should not be viewed a reaching notability in and of itself for such as this AfD , the part about Inherent notability has nothing to do with the poker player but rather then event, you are correct that very very few people have Inherent notability such a royalty or the Children of Heads of State but that nothing to do what being talk about, if a person had no notability prior to winning the WSOP like Jerry Yang (poker player) then it's the event itself that made them notable.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 22:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Comment agree with Sirex and Baloonman above, though we are still discussing specific guidelines. This is not an attempt to allow/disallow any more articles on poker players. It is an attempt to simply establish some guidelines as to who should be included in the encyclopedia and who should not. There are at least a handful of articles on poker players whose notability is questionable. This discussion is aimed at establishing some minimum thresholds of earnings/cash game winnings/tournament victories/etc. - that is all. I would not mind seeing some guidelines for poker players added to Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Additional_criteria - the guidelines for porn actors are a good example. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 06:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Oppose - I agree with other Oppose votes have stated that this seems to override WP:N. From my experience on working reality TV shows, not every competitor or even every competitor that gets to the final/top rankings of a show is necessarily notable. It's perfectly acceptable to list results and persons' names, but if all you can say about them is "John Smith is a 25 year old from California that won the 2007 Poker Thingy" (even if well sourced) and cannot provide either more details about the player's poker career from secondary sources or notability from another aspect, then there shouldn't be an article about that person. If if this is stated "for poker players", it also can lead to the case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for other fields - why not list a state's all-star high school football team year after year? Why not every player on a top-tier college football team? There needs to be a stronger standard that "they won a tourney" to make them notable. I also believe the scope is way too limited to make it a WP-wide policy/guideline. We are, in fact, still determining if sub-notability guidelines should exist. I think defining, for purposes for WikiProject Poker, what makes a player notable or not as part of article guidelines or other project-specific MOS is completely acceptable. Mind you, the issues discussed about this should be taken into account, and should not just be left as "anyone that wins a tourney is notable". I just don't think you need a standalone sub-notability guideline. It appears you aren't familiar with the guidelines now. The guideline states ANY professional athlete who played even one game is notable. This guideline simply states that is NOT the guideline for poker players. Here only hall of fame and champions from a small number of defined tournaments qualify. Anypleyer who wins one of these events now will qualify under BIO, with tons of secondary articles, but we are simply trying to establish that others are NOT instantly notable, but that the dead hall of fame guys are, even though they likely aren't going to be generating a lot of new press now, since they are still dead. 2005 (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC) I certainly applaud the efforts, though - the rationale that anyone with $1500 can basically become a professional poker player means that some line has to be drawn. --MASEM 14:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Oppose - There is no need for any criteria beyond WP:N. If the person is noticed in a verifiable way by credible independent sources, then an article is justified. Why do we need to say more? --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Please note the rationale above. The problem as it exists right now is that every month one or two non-notable professional or Tournament poker player is taken up to AfD. Everytime they are taken to AfD, we see the same things. Below are some comments from the last two AfD's Jason V or Steve Carter. poker players have been treated as athletes previously for purposes of WP:BIO and this guy appears to qualify as a competitor who has "played in a fully professional league keep because the player won a "major" tournament. He's a pro player thus we need to keep. don't know how to judge poker notability What we are doing is setting the guideline at a level wherein anybody who qualifies will either be a Poker Hall of Famer or have enough notability that s/he would qualify under WP:BIO for other reasons. What we are trying to eliminate are the "keep" votes because they played in the WPT/WSOP or won a "Major" tournament. We are CLOSING doors, not opening them.Balloonman (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC) QFT - I agree re:Balloonman. If anything, guidelines would REDUCE the number of Wiki articles on poker players, not increase the number. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 05:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Oppose: Notability guidelines should be used only in limited cases where the primary notability guideline is likely to fail. If multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources do not exist, well, they don't exist. That is true of poker players, and basketball players, and Sewer Workers and kindergarten teachers as well. This MAY merit a single-line mention in the WP:BIO guideline, but we don't need an entire page dedicated to this very small niche issue. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC) [edit] Neutral Neutral for now. The above criteria is certainly a good start; however, we need to include some additional criteria to cover cash game players and authors. Based on the above, Bob Ciaffone and Matthew Hilger would not qualify. They do meet WP:BIO but we should include some cash game and author/writing criteria to avoid conflicts and arguments. Off the top of my head, we could include something like: a minimum, verifiable net cash game winning threshold - $1 million? regular publication in notable poker magazines authorship of a major poker work Also, let's start thinking about how we will go about reviewing/updating/deleting all of the individual player articles once we have agreed on a set player bio criteria. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 14:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Caiffone and Hilger would both qualify as you pointed out due to other criteria for BIO. In order to get that 1 million verifiable net cash game winning threshold, you would have to have published sources---thus covered in bio. Ditto the authorship/publication issue.Balloonman (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC) EDIT: Also, it does favor tournament players because there are established tournaments wherein winning imbues the winners with notability. Cash players will have to provide the secondary sources that they are notable---which even with the 1 million dollar threshold would still exist. Plus, is player who played in the 70's less notable because he only won 500K while a player today won a million?Balloonman (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC) It needs to be clear that these criteria are merely allowing additional articles, not preventing anything that could be allowed under BIO. In other words these criteria do not comment at all both Ciaffone and Hilger. Both easily meet the requirement of BIO. the criteria essentially says we can make articles on old/dead folks who are in the hall of fame(s) or won a WSOP prior to the Internet. The only addition is saying anyone who makes the final table of the WSOP now (and makes a million in one event) can have an article -- but that latter thing could be removed simply because the chances are every player making the final table will have some hometown paper writing about them that would meet BIO. Put another way, poker players are not athletes as defined by BIO. If poker players meet the first/general part of the BIO, they can have articles, but the old guys have a leg up. For example, Little Man Popwell is widely mentioned as the best poker player of the pre-World War II era. He is in the Hall of fame, and that "best" fact is mentioned a lot online, but there are few articles that focus directly on him online, so from strictly a BIO perspective he would be marginal, but if hundreds of sites exist with one line saying he was the best, and he is in the hall of fame, I think we can put up a darn stub about him. On the secondary thing, I've looked at all the stubs and there are almost none that might deserve to be afd'ed -- unless someone would take the position that ones like the Popwell one should be deleted, which I'd consider silly. 2005 (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC) I'd say that George Danzer merits an AFD, as would Doug Lee (poker player). Most of the stub articles on players are fine, but there are a handful that should be sent to the trash heap. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 07:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC) George Danzer I would agree with, on the other hand Doug Lee came in 1st place, winning a ring in the 2005 $10,000 WSOP Circuit Championship which was televised on ESPN, I still remember that one well it had Jennifer Harman and Jean-Robert Bellande which made him famous for coming in 3rd before the whole Survivor-China bit. favorite part was when Harmen who wasn't in the hand said to Bellande and Lee something like you are going to bet you are going raise you are going fold "I predict the future!" and that's what happen :) ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 08:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC) I think both of them could go... a circuit event is not notable... even if it did include Harman and the guy from Survivor. But if we took them there, we would have to explain how their playing in a tournament wasn't equivalent to the athletes "playing at the highest amateur level."Balloonman (talk) 09:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Danzer should go, but Lee writes for Canadian Poker Player magazine, and has at least several articles about him, so perhaps he could stay. Somebody could check him out further and see what can be found. 2005 (talk) 09:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC) I propose that we table this for now and come back to it later. Once we come to some sort of agreement for notability criteria then I will start a new discussion and list of player articles that should be reviewed. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 17:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC) I assume that you are referring to tabling these two particular stubs? If so I agree. I think we should get the Poker Notability Criteria established, that would give any AFD more weight and help set standards for what we believe is important.Balloonman (talk) 17:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Sounds good. I went ahead and AFDed the Danzer article. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 05:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Neutral The guidelines are a good idea, however I see some flaws. First, the million dollars is irrelevant and should be removed. Dollars are fleeting and are silly guideline, either as an automatic qualifier or an exclusion. Also, the WSOP, EPT, and WPT isn't the be all and end all. Players who get national TV time on WSOP, EPT, WPT, USPC, HPT and other (inter)nationally aired final tables for years (and years) should be notables (Example: Steve Carter (poker player)). The Steve Carter information may be incomplete but it's interesting encyclopedic information. Outside of those, how do you quantify who can stand the test of time (year after year)? The Hall of Fame, yes. A Million Dollars? No. Online Poker? Few online poker players permanently are notable without first playing live and getting subsequent media time and recognized by people who don't spend their life in front of a computer. HOWEVER, some potential sources could be magazine online players of the year from Bluff or CardPlayer or some other mass-distributed poker rag. Just my mumbles. Hope they're relevant. Herb Riede 08:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC) The Steve carter article isn't the slighest bit notable. Since it wasn't stubbed I didn't notice it before. It obviously deserves an AFD, so I'm putting it up now. (One minor finish in a casino tournament and some home games! LOL) 2005 10:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Appearing on TV is not necessarily notable. I mean, you have the heartland poker tournament that airs on TV. Plus, it becomes impossible to verify who made it to a televised show. The million dollars in a single event is notable. There are very few people who have won a million dollars without it being aired on TV or being a major event to begin with. PLus, it kind of becomes our threshold of what does it mean to "play at the highest level."Balloonman 19:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment

1. Comment. Balloonman's recent addition to the rationale is very important. The article criteria for athletes is far more generous than this is, so making it a lot stricter is just a no go from the Project perspective. Poker is now a much greater cultural phenomenon than many sports, though not on the level of baseball or basketball. We aren't going to make criteria to ghettoize poker players. They aren't less human than a hockey player. We are just trying to recognize that mere participation in a tournament or a high stakes ring game is not enough to merit an article, whereas playing a few hockey games is. Winning a WSOP event in 1975 merits a free pass; winning a few online tournaments this week does not. 2005 (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

   Agree 100% ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 07:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Comment. The notability of cash game/internet players is a difficult situation, big tournament players are easy, aside being minor celebrities their winnings are tracked better, the problem with cash games is a rich doctor could win 1.2 million over a coarse of a week getting very lucky on cold decked hands against their more skilled opponents (set over set, quads over fullhouses, flush over flush or bad call draw outs), five weeks later the rich doctor is down 3 million and never plays again and only mention in passing or never talked about at all, other cash game players may win 3 million over the coarse of 4 years that they made by hopping to casino to casino playings $50/100 and with no one really knowing anything about them, which is the reason we don't see article on cash game only player or Internet players like (Tom Dwan / Durrrr) (Phil Galfond / OMGClayAiken (even though he was in an couple of episodes of GSN's HSP) etc. as a matter of fact, I don't think there are any cash game/internet only players that have articles, even great live cash game players like Kenny Tran didn't get an article until after his 2007 WSOP performance in both the ME and $50,000 HORSE, or internet tournament players like BeL0WaB0Ve until the WPT victory or the great JohnnyBax until after he got a WSOP bracelet.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 05:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Comment. I don't see any need to add an inclusion policy for cash game players. Suppose a day trader made a million dollars in a week, that wouldn't justify a wikipedia article. Lots of people in other walks of life are good at their jobs too. I see a distinction between tournaments which are promoted as spectator events vs playing in private purely for the sake of personal income. Although I could see making a case for players that appear repeatedly in televised cash games, but that would probably satisfy existing notability requirements without adding any special cash game clause to the poker requirements. —Kymacpherson (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do cash game players get no love? The games usually aren't televised, but chess matches are usually not televised either. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 04:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

True neither are usually televised however other than a World Champion,whose matches are heavily reported, and an occasional grandmaster chess players aren't usually held to be notable. I have to feel the same is true of cash game players, they either make significant coverage or they don't. Cash games aren't held in the public eye to the degree that tournaments are. Horrorshowj (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Votes are bad. Remember, biographies must be comprehensive. Can you tell me where the person was born? Where and when they were married, and to whom? How many children they have, and their names? If not, the writing of a biography is unacceptable. Mention them in the event article. This is probably true in the vast majority of cases. It comes down to sourcing, inherent notability is inherently nonexistent. The sources are there or they aren't. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Except on the most semantic level that's not true, or at least not helpful. The BIO guideline is clear. If someone has played in a professional sports league such a person is generally notable, even if it does not guarantee an article. This text should merely be of similar weight as the athletes or porn actors text. We aren't going to have poker players ghettoized, but similarly we are looking to fall under the general statements in the BIO guideline. As for born and married, that's all usually irrelevant. We are an encyclopedia, not a birth registry. We are here to deal with people's notability. Somebody who won a WSOP event in 1975 is notable for that, not when he was born or the names of his kids. That is fine detail to have, but it's not at all important. 2005 (talk) 09:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    • You've used ghettoized twice now. but I'm not sure of what you mean by that.Balloonman (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Restricted to a lesser area... looked on by outsiders with disrepute... something like that. I guess I should have just said something about "second class citizens" or something like that. The slang got the best of me... 2005 (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It also isn't true. The winner of a WSOP bracelet, is notable by nature of having won a bracelet. His/her name will forever be listed as a bracelet winner. If he/she participates in a tournament 30 years down the road, his victory from 30 years ago will still be mentioned---even if he does nothing in the meantime. What we've done above is set the criteria high enough that we aren't giving out notability for non-notable events. As for who the person married and names of children. If we have it great, but biographies often do not have those details. Lacking information is not a reason not to start an article---also known as a stub.Balloonman (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Exactly what policy do you think stubs are a violation of? Horrorshowj (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • There is also something to be said for comprehensiveness. We know relatively little about the 2nd through 10th Popes, but we still have individual articles about them, even though they will always be lavishly illustrated stubs. Stubs are OK. Most 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica articles would be considered stubs in our ratings, that doesn't make them somehow not encyclopedic. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Most 1911 Enclclopedia Britannica articles would be slapped with so many tags NPOV, V, Disputed, fact, etc that it wouldn't even be funny!Balloonman 23:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marking as rejected

Per the talk page on WP:N, I am marking this proposal as rejected: not because it is not useful to the WikiProject from whence it came, but because it has almost no usefulness outside of that project. We do not turn the results of every project discussion into a WP-wide guideline. Based on my read of this page I don't think it was ever the intent of the framers and supporters to do so either. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm unclear as to what is going on here. We are trying to establish some guidelines for inclusion of poker players. What is the correct procedure, or is there even one established? As best I can see, the participants in WP:POKER were discussing some thresholds for article inclusion, never intending to supercede WP:N. User:Balloonman and User:Rray requested some comments from the folks at the WP:N discussion page - now we are being told that the "proposal" is "rejected" - huh? I'm not sure what we should be doing differently. Can you explain what we should have done differently?

I recall that there was once a guideline for porn actors, WP:PORNBIO. It nas how been mreged into Wikipedia:Notability (people):

• Pornographic actor:
  • Has won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Adult movie awards or Category:Film awards or from a major pornographic magazine, such as Penthouse, Playboy, or Playgirl, as well as their counterparts in other pornography genres.
  • Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography, or starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature.
  • Has been featured multiple times in mainstream media.

Could we not do something similar for poker players? ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 18:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No one is saying you can't make a guideline for poker players. But as your proposed Poker player guidelines falls strictly in the bounds of WP:POKER (there is no Poker player that should not be listed under that project), there is no need to create a Wikipedia-wide guideline for it. Create it as a subpage of WP:POKER (say WP:POKER/Notability, abbreviated to WP:POKER/N) for this, and makes sure your project is aware of it. You can still ask WP:N for help to refine the guideline within the project. --MASEM 19:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

So in a nutshell, the discussion should have remained where it was in the first place? I'm trying to clarify whether or not the editor who moved the discussion here was correct in doing so. It seems as if that were the incorrect thing to do procedurally, but I don't know. I was fine with discussing it at the poker Wikiproject talk page to begin with. Rray (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well obviouly there is clear need for one, and it is appropriate to have one just as athletes or porn actors do. Poker players are people too, and should be treated as such. Honestly, where do these comments come from? Why should a guideline for porn actors exist but not one for poker players. Please be specific in your answer. Thank you.2005 (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

SmartGuy, if you can demonstrate that there is sufficient need for special rules on poker players, or a broader group, where BIO or N does not cover, then I think that a special section at BIO my be appropriate. I'm glad to work with you on that. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Kevin, thanks for offering to help. Before we go any further, I'm going to ask for Balloonman, Rray, and others to comment here, so that we can be sure that we are all on the same page. I'm not sure that we are all discussing the same thing.

Here's a quick summary of my understanding of the issue:

• We want to establish a threshold for including articles on poker players. This is not meant to expand/supercede/replace WP:N, but to be a guideline on a specific subset of people.
• Because of the open nature of poker tournaments and cash games (anyone of legal age with the funds can participate), there are hundreds to even thousands of players who get lucky and win a tournament, get a bit of press coverage, but then fade into obscurity. The coverage by poker-related media and sometimes mainstream media may qualify the person under WP:N, but this does not necessarily make the person "notable" in the long term to either the poker community or the world in general. Example (my opinion only here): Tiffany Williamson - flash-in-the-pan player who had a good run in one tournament a few years ago.
• As recently as five years ago, only a few $10,000 buy-in tournaments or tournaments with prize pools in excess of $1 million were held each year. Today, there is literally one such tournament held every week. Winners and final-tablers from these tournaments often receive mainstream media coverage, but to include articles on all of them would expand the number of poker player articles exponentially without adding any real value to Wikipedia.
• 15 minutes of fame as a result of ESPN / World Poker Tour / etc. coverage does not equate notability.
• Cash game players are tracked and reported on by genre-specific media, which I believe technically qualifies them as notable under WP:N, but this does not make them notable to the world in general. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 20:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

that is what this is, text that could go at WP:BIO#Additional_criteria. Poker players are not exactly athletes, entertainers or creative people, but it is very useful in preventing a lot of vanity articles by having this guideline. Essentially the point is "no little boy, you can't have artcile because you won an online tournament. Here is what notability is as a poker player. Poker players need secondary sources like any other BIO article, but 'A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards'." Honestly what on earth is even slightly controversial about saying about 40 (more) poker players are generally notable, and others are not??? 2005 (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

We should not invent our own, original criteria for these issues. Let the sources be our guide. Friday (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Marking something as rejected when there is no consensus for that and has had zero discussion, and you are essentially the one one disagreeing, is a hopeless abuse of power. Remove the tag yourself, and participate in the discussion. What he have here is a very clear consensus for this guideline, which is extraordinarily simple, covering an allowance for articles of at most a few dozen living people and a handful more deceased... and clarifying that there are no other "atoumatic" ways to get an article, and, most importantly, saying "poker players are not athletes". Since only two four people have opposed the guideline,including the inappropriate tagger, we should just remove the tag and move on. Attaching "Rejected by the community" when it has not been is extraordinarily contemptous of the mass of editors. 2005 (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

OK now, let's stay cool here. I think that some of the folks who popped over here from WP:N at the request of some of the editors are saying: we don't want to make this Wiki-wide policy. That's actually not REALLY what we were discussing initially, which is why I posted that summary above. I don't think that we were all talking about the same thing. Let's clear the air up on that, and then work on how to go about establishing a poker player guideline or policy. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 04:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the Wikipedia, we are all cool. But slapping a "rejected by the community" on a page THE SAME DAY it was created is simply way over the top presumptuous. It does appear we have some problems both with people who don't want to have a discussion, and those who aren't even familiar with the guideline in question since it has a half dozen similar clarifying sections. If people offering opinions don't understand this is the normal/standard way of doing things, that leads to cluttering the discussion with wikilawyering discussions. Poker players are not a lower form of life than NASCAR drivers. Also, the idea that people not wanting to loosen restrictions arguing against a guideline that tightens restrictions is a bit hard to get your head around. :) 2005 (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It is appropriate that the guideline be rejected. It has no chance of success in anything like its current form. The guideline conflicts with WP:N and WP:BIO, and is conceptually redundant with respect to WP:BIO. Even more seriously, the three criteria offered (based on Winning or Induction) are not source based, but are prescriptions for original research. The proposal contradicts the intent of WP:NOR and WP:V. Wikipedia is only as good as its sources are reliable, and moves to encourage the creation of content not based on existing reliable sources are I the wrong direction.

I suggest that more effort might be applied towards improving articles about poker tournaments. World Series of Poker, for example, could use more referencing. The better collection of poker references would surely happen to provide suitable references for poker players. However, if any person is only notable with respect to a single thing (a single article), then probably it is better to keep that person as part of that article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

How does i conflict with WP:BIO? It obviously does not, so your comment is really just out there. BIO says a professional athlete is generally notable? So it is plainly obvious that the criteria of a win or hall of fame induction are both plainly similar. And then you make the statement "(based on Winning or Induction) are not source based, but are prescriptions for original research." Huh? of all the statements on here this one is the most bizarre. It's precisely the point. Both of these are clearly NOT original research, as they can be sourced in literally hundreds of places Again, that's the whole point. These guidelines PREVENT original research. Black is not white. "...and moves to encourage the creation of content not based on existing reliable sources are I the wrong direction." So then change your position because your statement is as illogical as a statement can get. Once again for those who seem to not be paying attention, the notability of any person who would be viewed as "generally notable" like athletes will have hundreds if not thousands of reliable websites noting them. But they will be mentioned in the context of many other people, not unique articles about only them. This is mostly about guys who died (or retired) before the Internet. 2005 (talk) 10:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It conflicts with WP:BIO (“This page in a nutshell: A person is presumed to be notable enough for a standalone article if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.”) the same way it conflicts with WP:N, in that it suggests that notability can be established without reference to sourcing. The fact that WP:BIO goes on to conflict with itself is another matter.

RE: prescription for Original Research. When you say “bizarre”, it tells me that we have two completely different perspectives. Let me try again. What I don’t like is that the Poker player becomes notable for winning something. Firstly, albeit a small point, how do we know he won? Is there a reliable source that reports all such winners? If so, link to it. Secondly, having passed the winner test, what are you going to say about the player beyond reporting that he won (ie. NEWS). If there is no source about the player, any content contributed will be original research. If there is a source that you can draw from, then the player meets WP:N and there is no need for this guideline.

This notability thing is in itself a problem for wikipedia. "Notability" is a distinctly different thing to what is commonly understood by "generally notable". This why I suggest that you try to avoid the word “notability” in any new guideline, or that if you want to support WP:N, you concentrate on clarifying what sort of sources can be used to demonstrate notability as per WP:N. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You just aknowledged it does NOT conflict with WP:BIO. Your contention is BIO conflicts with itself. In that case, you have an issue with BIO. This guideline, both wordings, in no way conflicts with what is already on the BIO page. So that is a non-issue. As for "how do we know he won", because there are thousands of references saying so. This prevents original research, and claims of notability that can not be 100% verifiable by thousands of sites. So, there is no issue with BIO, and certainly no issue with OR. the only issue seems to be some people don't like BIO, which is not logical to talk about here. This guideline just makes achieving notability more difficult. The second proposal is even more clear and I don't see how anyone can not support saying that unlike athletes, simply playing at a professional level does not make a poker player generally notable, but that bar is higher. Again, if the onjection is to how BIO is currently worded, that is the operating consenus, so saying you don't like BIO is not an appropriate objection here. That should addressed there. 2005 (talk) 04:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thousands of references? We’re talking about players. Are these references reliable secondary sources containing significant coverage about the player? If so, what is the aim here? If not, what sort of references are they? Are articles about pokers players to be allowed to be based on blog sources? News reports? Insignificant coverage within a broad source? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with saying, "This version is unacceptable due to various reasons." But I do have a problem with a person who !voted above closing the discussion after this page was created for less than 9 hours. The template reads, "The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption." Closing it without allowing anybody the chance to address the concerns is not discussion. Plus, our intention was NEVER to impose these on everybody, but rather to define what the project perceived as notability criteria.Balloonman (talk) 10:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC) NOTE: I understand why United did what he did---or original intent was not to create a confirmed guideline, but rather to state "playing in" or "making the money" in a tournament, regardless of how notable the tournament, does not make one notable---thus he is entirely correct, we were simply looking for a guideline for the project. My concern is that, as an active voice above, he should not have been the one to close it. I say this not to criticize him, but because I do believe it was a COI.Balloonman (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Simply put, this is not how you create a guideline, and no need for this page has been demonstrated. WP:BIO tends to suffice for all kinds of biographies, poker-player or not. It is obvious that this page runs counter to consensus, and hence "rejected" is the correct term. >Radiant< 22:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Proposal

Our intention was never to subvert BIO/N, but rather to provide an interpretation upon the section that is used to defend non-notable poker players---namely, "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis." Too often, as I cited above, an article is written for a player who made the money in a WSOP event or won a "major tournament." Having won a major tournament or made the money in a WSOP/WPT event, does not convey notability---even if they competed in a "competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis." This guideline, straight from WP:BIO is completely inappropriate for Poker because anybody with the buy in can compete in a WSOP/WPT event. Thus, we wrote our criteria to close the doors, but we did so in the affirmative---we defined what notability was.

Perhaps we should have written it in the negative? And rather than trying to establish what we view as notable, we should have defined what we don't see as notable. Furthermore, while OUR original intent was to write a guideline for the PROJECT, not I say we go for the gusto! Get it included on the main BIO page. To that end, I have the following proposal:

Competition of equivalent standing in poker is generally limited to the winners of WPT/WSOP/EPT events or Poker Hall of Fame inductees.

This would accomplish what we, as a wikiproject would like (limiting the vainity articles written on poker players) it would also accomplish what the critics would like--while staying completely within the current bounds of BIO. It still opens up the door for people to achieve notability in the primary manner, but it closes the door that the Wikiproject wants to see closed.

Despite what the critics may think, our original criteria was much stricter than what currently exists on WP:BIOBalloonman (talk) 09:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That is a good idea, and pithier. 2005 (talk) 10:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm still a bit split of having a highly specific guideline that can fall squarely into one Wikiproject be added at the Wikipedia level; however, a question I throw out is that is there any similar type of "competitive activity" like poker that has similar low levels of entry that can also be included with poker players as to expand the guideline as to include a a general statement on people in such competitive activities? --MASEM 14:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

We could have the sentence added to BIO, or not. This page was not created by the Poker project. We would be happy with just having the sentences on a separate project page. Discussing the "where" is just wikilawyer silliness. The point is to simply have something to refer to that has significant consensus that mitigates against vanity or non-vanity not-notable-enough articles. ESPN defines poker players as athletes, which is a powerful reference, so as currently worded, BIO is too liberal about assigning general notability to professional players. So we want to reign that in a bit and say poker players have a higher standard to be "generally notable" than athletes, but otherwise the normal criteria apply. Again, I don't understand anyone opposing this as how BIO is currently worded any professional poker player woud be cosidered generally notable, which means about 10,000 people would be generally notable while we are saying about 40 would be (who don't currently have articles). Why do you want the 10,000 instead of the 40? 2005 (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I am in no way saying that what is currently suggested should not be followed - this is a great addition. I just don't think we need to carve a special case on the Notability (People) page for "poker players". (Yes, I know adult film stars have a special carve out, I believe that to be a mistake). Doing so will generate a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and people will want to carve out other notability issues (as sacrastically pointed out by one for Overweight Plumbers) that don't have Wikipedia-wide use. However, if we can get a common criteria for "causal sports" which could possible include bowling, pool, etc., then I'm all for adding that, since it spans more than a specific project. --MASEM 04:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a carve out. There are already articles about poker players on Wikipedia that have survived AfD based on low level televised appearances such as Poker Royale. It was felt that the appearance met "fully professional". Much like the porn guidelines, this eliminates a lot of articles by restricting the notability criteria that applies. Another advantage is that all the criteria are concrete, which means they are less twistable at AfD. It should be added to WP:BIO not made as an independent guideline, although I think that will satisfy a lot of the votes against it. Horrorshowj (talk) 07:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

==Better idea== (Comment moved from main page) Add a line to WP:BIO to fix the problem. We don't need a notability guideline for every professsion. Or better yet, find multiple non-trivial reliable sources. That trumps all... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Even better idea, let's get rid of the ludicrous "pro sports players get articles" bit altogether. Most pro sports players receive little to no coverage. That's not to say we shouldn't have an article on Michael Jordan or John Elway, because of course in those cases plenty of source material exists, but we probably shouldn't have one on the guy that was on a pro team roster as a backup for a single season, or just played along but never received much coverage. Lists exist for a reason, there's nothing wrong with List of players on the 1997 Denver Broncos to aggregate a bunch of permastubs. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

SB, your observation can be applied to most special cases at BIO. I think that a reliance on WP:N is really all that we need, and that the premise of BIO, ORG, and the even more specific guidelines is flawed. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yep, adding a line there sounds like a good idea. People will even find it more easily, there. >Radiant< 22:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• But what other line? What actually needs to be said on the issue of poker player notability? —gorgan_almighty (talk) 12:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)