Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker/Archive/2015

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

General notability
I think we need to add a new criteria towards players whom we believe have automatic general notability. That would be:


 * Any player who has won the Card Player or WSOP Player of the Year award.74.124.47.10 (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Seems good, but I'd also assume such a person would already easily merit an article due to coverage in independent sources. 2005 (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Handpolk is almost certainly a sockpuppet of the banned User:DegenFarang
His tendentious editing and scorched earth actions have been clear from the beginning (no other human likes to write word "peacock" as much as this guy), but he's now going on his usual lying and reverting and pretending agreement. So pathetic. 2005 (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Amazing what can happen in a week, I made a comment at the SPI, I don't know if I should comment in all those afds while a SPI is ongoing.

2005 I think it would be best not to engage a user not acting in good faint with reverts but to report them, he is trying to get under your skin, don't let him.▪◦▪ ≡S i R E X≡  Talk 03:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input and summary of this ongoing saga. I haven't reverted a ton of his edits, but I did revert the ones to the Project page here because he cited his new text as the new consensus version to deliberately confuse people commenting on the AFDs.  Whatever consensus should be in the future, the last consensus version from a year ago that had not been substantially changed in the three years before that is the one people should be able to refer to. Anyway, thanks again. 2005 (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is new consensus, showing people the old census is would deliberately confuse them. LowballChamp (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see any new consensus, so what you call the old consensus is in fact the present consensus. The Banner talk 14:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Handpolk has been indeffed as a sock of DegenFarang, see Sockpuppet investigations/DegenFarang . Bishonen &#124; talk 15:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC).
 * As has LowballChamp. Liz  Read! Talk! 19:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Notability Requirement
I propose we ignore tournament results in establishing notability and focus on RS's instead. If the tournament they won was notable enough, it will be covered by RS's. If it wasn't, then we aren't including people who don't deserve an article.

I have nominated the following for deletion as examples of the current flawed requirements: Bob Ciaffone, Gene Fisher and Rodney H. Pardey.

The articles for people who won minor side events at the WSOP many years ago tend to be really bad, with the only thing sourced being available on Hendon Mob and everything else being unsourced peacock fluff. Articles like that do not improve the encyclopedia, they make it worse. It is noted on the project page we have these articles for people who want to see what else they have won. There are tons of other places they can get that information and in a better format, that doesn't invite people adding peacock fluff. All we are doing is repeating verbatim with those sources say, anyway. More examples from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:World_Series_of_Poker_bracelet_winners.


 * Dave Alizadeth won $20,000 in the casino employees event in 2000 and he is notable?
 * Howard Andrew won $50,000 total in two events in the 1970's and he is notable?
 * Sam Angel won $49,000 total in two events in the 1970's and he is notable?

That's just the A's.

Handpolk  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  21:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You appear to be not appreciating two key things: first, no WSOP tournament before 1990 was a "minor" side event. It was the highest achievement possible for that game in the world at the time.  For example, the first few WSOP main events had less than 20 people.  But they were still recognized as the greatest achievement in the poker world.  (Less than a dozen horses typically run in the Belmont Stakes; it's still pretty great to win.)  And events in the first few Olympics often only had a small number of participants.  The winners are still notable as Olympic champions.  Additionally, $100,000 in the 1970s is the equivalent of somewhere in the half million dollar ballpark now.  Secondly, there was no Internet when people won bracelets in the 1970s and 1980s.  There is nothing to link, hardly any ancient newspapers are online.  Whatever criteria we have for people today should not be as stringent as for people forty years ago.  All these people who won a few decades ago are listed in innumerable publications as WSOP winners, which is not classic coverage, but it is coverage of these people as members of a group.  The winner of a WSOP bracelet in 1980 is certainly more encyclopedic than somebody who played baseball for a few weeks in 1957, but other Wikiprojects seek to be exhaustive rather than restrictive.  Any poker player who has not won a WSOP bracelet needs the normal independent coverage in reliable sources to merit an article, but there is no harm at all in tending to be exhaustive when it comes to WSOP winners -- especially those who have won more than once like Pardey, Andrew and Fisher.  This puts them above mere "single event" notability. The guide should be what is most helpful to users, which generally is to favor more encyclopedic information, not less. 2005 (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that pre-internet sources will be tougher to come by. That may be a reason to lower the threshold but not to eliminate it. However I disagree on how important it was to win a WSOP bracelet before 1990. Nobody cared about poker in those days. The fields were tiny. The prize pools were tiny. The press didn't care. Outside of the Main Event and the (very small) poker world, nobody cared. Comparing it to the Olympics or Belmont Stakes is not accurate, as those are invite only events. Anybody could have played these events, yet only a few people did because poker was a very fringe endeavor back then. If you want a comparison, compare it to backgammon. Surely you wouldn't argue that anybody who ever won a side-event at the World Backgammon Championships would qualify for an article? Maybe the World Champion each year but nothing beyond that.   Handpolk   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  21:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Backgammon is one game. The World Series of Poker in the earlier years mostly featured one event in each discipline.  So by the logic of what you said, the winner of the seven card stud event would merit inclusion the same way backgammon would.  See 1975 World Series of Poker as an example.  No duplicates at all.  "Poker" is a family of games, some of which are totally different than each other.  As for "nobody cared", that certainly isn't true.  Millions of people played poker for decades.  The main reason for the small fields was the huge entry fees... Joe Kitchen Table Player wasn't going to just come up with $1000 to play the seven card stud event against the best players.  It actually is not that unsimilar to the early Olympics, where most anyone could enter, and athletes paid their own way overseas to wherever they were being held.  More to the point, there is no strong reason to not include articles on these older winners, especially ones who won multiple events.  Suppose someone wants to know who won these events, and how some older player did in his career?  There is no reason for us not to have this encyclopedic information available.  One older player was a guy named Hal Fowler.  Granted his one win was the main event in 1979, but he is interesting precisely because he was almost totally anonymous then and now.  It would be non-user friendly to not have an article on him even though the sources on him are minimal compared to what we would have today.  Basically, the Wikipedia isn't much needed for anything that happens today.  But it should do its best with bringing together what information is available about pre-Internet events.  I'd agree the Dave Alizadeth article doesn't exactly enrich civilization, but both Andrew and Angel are multiple winners and the articles offer some interesting information.  Also Andrew's article does list multiple reliable sources so I don't think there is any problem there in any case. 2005 (talk) 05:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a very good reason not to have them, they are not notable. Your original research about how important tiny WSOP side events were in the 1970's and 80's doesn't change that. Another good reason is that most of these articles simply repeat information on a bunch of other sites (1 2 3) about which event they won and how much they won. Wikipedia is adding precisely nothing of value to the World by copying that information here -- and providing a place for them and their friends, family and fans to add a bunch of unsourced peacock statements about them. Handpolk   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  02:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia copies stuff. That is what it exists for.  It copies stuff, ideally from many places, and organizes it.   The criteria for these articles is clear, win an event, so no random vanity articles can be created.  You haven't made any case for why you find these articles written by multiple contributors to be a negative for the encyclopedia. Try and consider what is best for users.  These articles are accurate and informative.  Some are stubs, but that is reason to seek out more sources for them, not delete them. 2005 (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed 'the criteria' you speak of is nothing more than an essay. I disagree with that essay and will be ignoring it. I don't think winning a WSOP side-event automatically makes one notable. Handpolk   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  23:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's the result of several long discussions both within the Project and the encyclopedia as a whole. It's a consensus of prior discussions debated by many people, so ignoring it is ignoring the consensus and views of many other editors. Please respect other editors' work and views. 2005 (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change over time. Right now all I see is you -- using original research, misrepresenting essays as "criteria" and using other fear tactics, while making no valid arguments for WP:N.  Handpolk   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  20:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia is not a "right now" thing. Numerous editors have contributed to it and you should respect their work and opinions -- not give in to them, but respect them.  As of now, no one agrees with you, so you should stop just doing stuff you want and seek to formulate a _new_ consensus.  For example, the current consensus values one-shot accomplishement in winning a bracelet.  The BLP1 rule runs counter to that, so one time winners without coverage could be redirected to event pages.  However, two time (or more) winners could not be even possible to do that with.  Two time or more winners also plainly are not BLP1 by definition.  Considering your opinion, my own view would be 1) anybody with two or more reliable source coverage gets an article, 2) sourced multiple winners get an article, 3) one-time winners (or participants) without coverage don't get articles (until they merit it with reliable sources or a second accomplishment).  This view seems to be similar to what Clarityfiend stated elsewhere. (Also, please don't just redirect existing articles. That is not the proper way to do things.  Better to discuss here, and if you are unsatisfied then, use Afd. 2005 (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:BOLD and the spirit of WP:IAR -- which I'd amend to "ignore all essays, original research and fear tactics from editors who think they WP:OWN articles or entire topics." Handpolk   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  21:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The easiest way for you to be ignored is to start quoting ignore all rules. I know you are a newish editor and having problems with process elsewhere, but try to remember that the Wikipedia is a cooperative enterprise, not something where you can just do anything you please just because you can. 2005 (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * IAR doesn't exist so people who cite it can be ignored, FYI. It's a policy that's useful in situations like this -- where no or few other editors even care and consensus or guidance will be hard to come by. However since you, ironically, seem to want to ignore that policy -- and since I'm not breaking any rules --WP:BOLD makes my point just fine.  Handpolk   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  23:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Editors who say they will ignore all rules by definition should be ignored by the same criteria. IAR isn't something only spoiled children get to do unquestioned. 2005 (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You are practicing WP:IAR here by ignoring policy on notability, original research and tendentious editing. I on the other hand have ignored no policy, I only mentioned those three letters and you blew a gasket. I repeat, WP:BOLD is a much more accurate description of what I'm doing. Handpolk   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  02:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:GNG is not overriden by local project consensus. If these players don't have substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources, they should be deleted or redirected. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Toohool (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's my take on this as a longtime poker player. First, Handpolk is a bit too fixated on the amount of money. Back then, that was a substantial amount. Besides, how much did Cy Young ever make?


 * Second, these were not and are not "side events", certainly not as that term is understood in the poker world. They were/are legitimate tournaments in their own right, mainly in different variants of the game, just as doubles at Wimbledon is not a "side event" of singles. And they were the top level of poker tournament competition, in one sense much more exclusive than they are now. Back then, competitors were serious, top-flight players (or wealthy dilettantes). That's not the case nowadays. Any competent (or incompetent) Joe Blow from Kokomo can scrape up the entry fee or win a satellite.


 * The real sticking point I see is that the coverage is skimpy, though the accomplishments are not unverifiable. I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but consider baseball players who appeared in one MLB game (e.g. Lewis (baseball)) or all those early cricketers for whom we don't even know much of anything, not even their first name (e.g. Marshall (London cricketer)). So yes, Wikipedia is sort of a sports almanac.


 * In conclusion, I'd redirect some one-time winners on a case-by-case basis, but keep the rest. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Your knowledge gained as a "long time poker player" is original research that cannot be used as a factor in establishing notability. Let's stick to what's in the RS's. And the RS's say many of these people are not notable simply for winning side preliminary events with tiny prize pools. Handpolk   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  00:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Where is the OR? I'm just stating things that are well known in the poker world. And again, stop beating the "tiny prize" horse. It's dead, a non-issue you just don't seem to recognize. Arnold Palmer got $11,250 for winning the 1958 Masters Tournament. Top pro athletes in the past had to work second jobs to make ends meet. So? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Where is the OR?" it's in your next sentence: "I'm just stating things that are well known in the poker world" this statement must be backed up by RS's if we are to use it to establish notability -- along with all of the things you claim are 'well known in the poker world.' I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying that's OR. "Arnold Palmer got $11,250 for winning the 1958 Masters Tournament. WP:OSE. If you have RS's that say the winners of these events are notable despite the tiny prizepools, great. Otherwise it's OR. Handpolk   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  02:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The pot calls the kettle black. Where is your RS for your very contentious OR claim that tiny (actually not even so tiny in most cases) prize pools rule out notability? That simply doesn't fly, as I have shown with counterexample after counterexample. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, where do you get off stating "There is unanimous agreement on the project talk page for no longer automatically considering bracelet winners notable" at the Afd discussion for Steve Badger (poker player). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * First, I caution you to remain civil; 'pot calls the kettle black' and 'where do you get off' etc.
 * I never said tiny prizepools rule out notability. Main Event winners today win millions of dollars. So by comparison when Doyle Brunson & Starla Brodie shared $4,500 in the $600 buy-in mixed doubles event in 1979, I'd call that tiny. You are free to call it 'huge' or 'life-changing money.' In any event, notability is defined at WP:N. It's based primarily on coverage in reliable sources. Your 'counter-examples' are all WP:OSE and not relevant.
 * There is unanimous agreement on the project... -- you said: I'd redirect some one-time winners on a case-by-case basis. That means that a bracelet does not automatically qualify you, does it not? Everybody here agrees on that. Handpolk   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  09:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Where do you see 2005 agreeing to this phantom "unanimity". I said some (as in the employees-only tournament and the really tiny first ladies one). I'm currently undecided on whether the others automatically qualify or not.
 * As for your disclaimer about the amounts involved, you're the one bringing it up repeatedly ("Howard Andrew won $50,000 total"; "Sam Angel won $49,000 total"; " The prize pools were tiny"; "There are poker players who make more than her lifetime earnings in tournaments multiples times per day, 365 days per year"; "players who won less than a new Toyota in the 70's and 80's"). My counterexamples are not OSE; they are clear proof that sports prize money in that era was small across the board by modern standards. When Hale Irwin won the 1974 U.S. Open (golf), he got $35,000. The top prize money for three of the five preliminary events at the 1974 World Series of Poker exceeded that amount. The 1973 US Open (tennis) awarded $25,000 to the men's and women's singles champions (the 1974 article doesn't show the prize money). Clarityfiend (talk) 09:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Where do you see 2005 agreeing" right here: "one-time winners (or participants) without coverage don't get articles (until they merit it with reliable sources or a second accomplishment)" and you're also agreeing when you say "I said some." Remember that the consensus I said exists is that any WSOP bracelet does not automatically qualify you. That is consistent with the quotes above. You're both essentially saying that it's case-by-case and if it's case-by-case, that's not automatic qualification. So in the case of Steve Badger (poker player) he would not automatically qualify, just as I said at the AfD.
 * Regarding your irrelevant references to tennis and golf, which you insist are not 'other stuff,' I will continue to use the word tiny to describe these prize pools because in my view thats exactly what $3,900 profit split between two people is. However that is not the basis for my denying anybody is notable. It's their lack of coverage in RS's. Handpolk   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  10:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:ATHLETE is a black eye on Wikipedia, and its influence should be contained and reduced, not expanded to other fields of human competition. Today it's poker, tomorrow we'll have an article for everyone who wins a major Super Smash Brothers tournament. Toohool (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Until a different consensus is reached, we're stuck with ATHLETE. Plus it's a big step up from one appearance in a game to winning a top tournament. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Who won two Super Smash Brothers world championships in 1975? You're overstating things more than a little bit.  The bottom line is these stub winner articles plainly and without a doubt meet WP:V.  The information about them winning the events is all over the Internet and not in doubt.  Any further claims about being the coolest barbershop quartet singer of course need other reliable sources.  Wikipedia is about verifiability.  The WSOP aspects of these articles are verifiable. 2005 (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Verifiability is necessary but not sufficient to have an article, that is the entire purpose of WP:N. I can cite a newspaper article showing I won an elementary school chess tournament in 1988, doesn't mean I get an article about me. And consensus for WP:ATHLETE does not mean there's consensus to use analogous inclusion criteria in other fields. Toohool (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's why there was a long discussion a few years ago that first established a poker notability guideline to be more exclusive than Athlete, and then it morphed into the Project guideline. This is all a silly waste of time going over this again.  Unlike Athlete where playing is enough, with poker playing isn't enough, winning a tournament isn't enough.  You have to win a WSOP event.  But that consensus definitely fell under a refined view of Athlete.  Your chess tournament is not the same, and again please, if your chess tournament was listed in dozens of places, that would different.  These WSOP winners are listed all over the place.  Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. 2005 (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The people who got 2nd in all those tournaments are listed 'all over the place' too, so by your criteria, they also deserve an article? If winning those tournaments gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time this discussion would not be necessary because RS's would cover them, not just databases of tournament winners. Handpolk   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  00:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * got 2nd in all those tournaments are listed 'all over the place' too Do they deserve articles?  Well, it depends, do they have sufficient coverage in Reliable sources so that they meet the criteria elsewise?  One of the reasons why various wikiprojects were encouraged to establish guidelines is because those who contribute to the project are often in a better place to assess what makes one notable, than somebody not familiar with the project.  They were also encouraged to do so to help those not familiar with the subject to understand what makes a person notable.
 * People who have won the WSOP/SBOP/WPT have won competition at the top of their fields. These are the elite events of their day.  These are the events that identify the players who won major prestigious events that people still talk about.  Those players who won 30K in the 80s are just as important as the players who won 500K today---in fact, the prestige of an older bracelet is actually greater than it is today.  Luck plays a bigger role in an event with 10K participants than it does with 100 players.  These earlier bracelet winners were also the pioneers in the poker world.
 * The important about this criteria centers around the fact that people will often be searching to see who these players are. Were they one hit wonders that won a single tournament, or did they go on to have a successful career elsewhere.  If we don't have an article, even at a stub level, then Wikipedia fails to deliver important information to the reader---that the player reached this pinnacle of the poker world, but couldn't sustain it.  If it is simply a redirect or non-existant, then one does not know if the person won other events or if nobody created an article for the player.76.31.130.126 (talk) 06:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There may have been a long discussion within the project, but as I said at the outset, project consensus can't override GNG. Someone could be listed as a tournament winner by 500 sources, but that doesn't satisfy GNG if none of those sources include significant coverage of the player. Toohool (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It was not a project discussion, but a wider notability one Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(poker_players) that lead to a GNG consensus. So looking at the list Handpolk wants to redirect, the last one is sourced by two different New York Times articles, one from the San Francisco Chronicle, and several poker references like Cardplayer magazine.  Are you saying that you agree that the New York Times, etc, is not a reliable source for notability? 2005 (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So you agree with re-directing all of the others? Because all of them don't have New York Times sourcing. This habit of yours of finding an edge case and attempting to represent that as the norm seems very tendentious and I'd caution you to stop doing that if you want people to take your arguments seriously. Handpolk   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  02:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

mass redirection
I tried to re-direct some non-notable BLP's. They were reverted and I was asked to come here. The editor who reverted them will likely insist these players who won less than a new Toyota in the 70's and 80's with no coverage in RS's are notable. After that I will be submitting afd's for them and many others, unless consensus is reached on why winning a small buy-in side event 30+ years ago makes one notable outside of what the essay at the project says. Handpolk  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  21:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Calm down. Stub articles that have existed for many years should either be sourced or if you think they don't deserve to exist, then they should be taken to Afd.  Mass redirection is totally inappropriate and disrespectful. 2005 (talk)
 * which is why I haven't reverted you. Another editor has come here saying some of the same things I am saying. If you'll agree to start adding re-directions I'll get to work, so we can skip afd. Handpolk   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  22:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a discussion occurring. You cherry picking a weird mishmash of articles is not helpful.  Let the discussion occur this month.  And, redirections without AFD are never appropriate.  Every article needs consensus at AFD on its own before redirection. 2005 (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't cherry-pick. It's mostly alphabetical or by bracelet year. They all have to be examined eventually, I don't think it really matters how we choose them. Handpolk   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  00:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirects do not have to be discussed at AfD, it's perfectly valid to redirect an article boldly or after discussion on the talk page. Toohool (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BLAR is the guideline. As you say, discussion can happen with each article, but at this point "boldly" is not an option as there is disagreement. A redirect is never appropriate with disagreement.  2005 (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you planning to disagree on 100% of articles? If not, we can skip AfD on some. Handpolk   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  02:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We building an encyclopedia, not burning one. The first step with an existing article that is not sourced is to look for sources, not set it on fire.  First, as mentioned one of your list has two sources links from the New York Times and also the San Francisco Chronicle and Cardplayer magazine, etc.  You including that calls into question your whole intention here.  Then after five minutes of looking at Jimmy Casella I found a Pokernews article and a book by Francis Beckwith that I added as sources, and another from a Doyle Brunson book that I didn't add yet.  That is the first thing these articles need, to see about sourcing.  Then maybe a few weeks from now, if any still can't be sourced, we can go from there.  Ideally, every one of these articles would be kept when sources are added to each.  2005 (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have nominated that article for deletion. I find the sources very week. Since you are so hung up on it, hopefully we can just get that one out of the way, so we can focus on the many dozens where the players were not quoted in the New York Times.
 * That aside, we agree on not burning the encyclopedia. I went through a lot of articles to find the ones I nominated. Articles like Sailor Roberts and Johnny Moss clearly belong. If you think we can improve articles to demonstrate others have the same obvious notability -- and not just because Time Magazine quoted them once -- then sure, I'd be willing to try that. However when you say "ideally, every one of these articles would be kept" I would again caution you against tendentious editing, as it seems you have a point of view about the notability of the winners of WSOP preliminary events that you are trying to push. Handpolk   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  04:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Re: Jimmy Casella that PokerNews article is exactly the kind of thing we need to find to save articles. In my view, that establishes notability. It's not a random quote where they say he won a tournament and he give his views on the sushi in Las Vegas -- it's all about him and his accomplishments. If we can't find stuff like that -- articles should be re-directed. Handpolk   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  04:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * After much pondering, I see a WSOP win as a WP:ONEEVENT (except for the employees-only "non-event" and, at the opposite extreme, the Main Event). With the exception of the Main Event, unless the player wins another major tournament or does something else notable, a redirect to the appropriate WSOP article is in order. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)