Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker/Archive 4

Nicknames and Info Box
I am not liking the Nicknames section on the Info Box. A couple of the articles that I've recently written for WSOP bracelet winners are getting "nicknames" and it is impossible to tell if the nickname is legit or vandalism. The inclusion of a nickname on the Infobox invites somebody to add something there. (See James Mackey or Burt Boutin) I would prefer if we could have the nickname disappear like we have the WPT info disappear if there isn't a nickname.Balloonman 15:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is really like anything else you may doubt, ask for a source that is verifiable, I also will use the google test if I just want to see for myself
 * James Mackey, it looks as mig.com is his online screen name which isn't always the same as their poker nicknames. Burt Boutin being called something by Norman Chad during the show can just be his offhand bantering this the google results for "Red Bull Burt" and with result like this I would say will look for yourself :)
 * I will also work on your request, on collapsing the nickname field if it's blank ▪◦▪ЅiREXTalk 17:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nod, which is why I deleted the nickname of "Red Bull Burt" but left MIG.COM. My concern is that having a place for nicknames opens us up to people inserting unverified nicknames that are a violation of BIO... it invites potential vandalism.  I love having the nickname space there, but would prefer it if it was hidden when there were no nicknames.Balloonman 18:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)  Latest Chandrasekhar Billavara nickname Sako... no hits on AltavistaBalloonman 18:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Done, both nicknames and hometown are optional if they are not filled out they will not appear▪◦▪ЅiREXTalk 18:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Awesome!!! ThanksBalloonman 19:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Good change, but this remains a problem area, as some people do seem to think one comment by one commentator makes a "nickname". Likewise, someone's online name is not a nickname. And of course the vandals love adding insulting names to articles. Having the line in the info box is a bit better than having all those pseudo-nicknames in the first five words of articles, but we should be more careful to only use established nicknames, like "Miami", not ones that no one actually calls someone, and anything unflattering should just be removed on sight. 2005 20:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree 100% which is why I'm glad that Sirex was able to edit the infobox to make nicknames disappear if there isn't one. This should deter SOME of the vandalism---it won't get rid of it, but as it was, it was almost inviting people to vanalize!  We now need to make sure that "none" is deleted from infoboxes as we come accross it!Balloonman 20:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"Live" tournament results
Most articles about players have a sentence about live tournament winnings, usually sourced via the hendon mob's website. Unfortunately the mob site now has made itself a poor source for us as they include totally ludicrous data like winning super satellite seats and poker after dark winnings. We should be listing live, open tournament results only. Poker Pages unfortunately only goes back to 1999. While not perfect, CardPlayer.com now seems to be head and shoulders above the other two. They go back before 1999, and they do not include nonsense like satellites and made-for-tv invitationals (often just set up to promote certain players by some online site.) While the Mob or Pokerpages sites could be used to cite invidual events, I hope others will start replacing links to those sites for "total" winnings with the most accurate ones now available at Cardplayer. 2005 22:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is going to be a tough tidal shift to make as it can dramatically change players stats across the board, i.e.
 * Clonie Gowen
 * http://www.cardplayer.com/players/results/Clonie-Gowen/1917/2007 $211,450
 * http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=s&n=21433 $570,552


 * Annie Duke
 * http://www.cardplayer.com/players/results/Annie-Duke/756
 * $1,410,891
 * http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=74
 * $3,414,979
 * largest win $2,000,000-- 2004 No Limit Hold'em - Tournament of Champions (a non-open)
 * http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/event.php?a=r&n=8564
 * Is everyone in agreement to this change, why open tournament results only? ▪◦▪ЅiREXTalk 23:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking at some of those really pushed me over the edge. If Full Tilt makes a TV show, invites their players plus a handful of others, then awards a prize, that is ludicrous to compare to say coming in third at a WSOP event, especially like looking at all time numbers. Getting invited to a six player GSN or NBC show is not the same as winning a WSOP event in 1996.  The precedent is there in what we do already... we put the (parentheses) in the infobox for invitationals.  We should list the prize money for live, open, competitive, scheduled, play-down-to-one tournaments.  If on some articles someone wants to add "Smith also has won $xxx,xxx inmade to TV invitation events" that could be fine too, but mixing the two is silly, unencyclopidic and very, very, very deceptive. 2005 01:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with 2005 that something smells funny about including these invitational events (especially one like poker after dark).  I like the idea of noting the discrepancy when there is a large one.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's another problem with Hendon:
 * Alex Borteh's winnings
 * Alexander Borteh's winnings
 * Per the WSOP these are the same person!Balloonman 04:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * to me a win is a win, in a live tournament open or not, "very deceptive" how deceptive is it for the reader that the greatest amount in Annie Duke's "live tournament" winning earned her 2 million!
 * Gus Hansen
 * http://www.cardplayer.com/players/results/Gus-Hansen/1184/2007 cardplayer great database 2(+1) thats two results! + a non result
 * http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=461 gives a more comprehensive listing, I kinda like the mob db better but I'm out voted, there are other semi non-open events like the ladies only/seniors events which are not true opens yet are official in the bracelets counts, cardplayer.com is insufficient, I'm quiting updating,I been wasting my time updating dozens upon dozens, you all can do it, hash it out however you like tfd the infobox whatever!▪◦▪ЅiREXTalk 06:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * None of these are perfect, and in some cases one would be better than others, but "a win is a win" isn't accurate since most obviously we do not include online wins. While Ladies or Senior events limit some people, they are NOT invitationals.  Likewise some events like the old Tournament of Champions you had to qualify for, but anyone could try.  These are very different than some staged TV... which often gives a prize to the person who comes in DEAD LAST.  I believe that is silly beyond all possible defense.  Annie's $2m is a hopelessly deceptive thing when compared with how Kathy Liebert has won far more in open tournaments.  For an encyclopedia to not tell a more accurate picture is diservice to users.  "As of 2007, John Smith's open-field casino tournament winnings exceed..."  While this may not be perfect because it ignore a win in 1983 or includes a ladies event, it is far better than including last place show-up money for TV shows, or some satellite that happens to be recorded by the casino (when most are not). (An alternative would be to do away with the line altogether, and only cite specific wins.) 2005 09:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, hansen's correct listing is http://www.cardplayer.com/players/results/Gus-Hansen/1184 What you linked is his 2007 page. 2005 09:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * the hansen,s link I'll admit I was wrong, but please don't mix apples with oranges, what I meant by a win is a win is live tournament winnings, online winning is a whole different issue which can not be accurately determent, TV invitationals can be verifiable as a win, as well as the the amount that was won, you are right nothing is perfect but to say a freeroll win can not count as part as of their total live tournament winnings is silly too, especially if it make up a great portion of their verifiable winnings.▪◦▪ЅiREXTalk 10:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I can hold a tournament at my house, film it, and pay the two people who enter say $6000 and $4000 for playing. I can even invite Pokernews and cardplayer over to watch it.  It's verifiable, for real money, and totally of no encyclopedic value in terms of what that line is meant to convey.  Invitationals with no way for people to get into should not be mixed with poker tournaments.  Full Tilt could run an invitational between three of their female players, give a $5m first prize, film it, and proclaim the winner the winningest female tournament player of all time, and we'd be daft to repeat that.  That is essentially what we are doing now, and we need to correct that to either list nothing, or list only open field, non-invitational events.  Wikipedia doesn't need to call Celebrity Poker Showdown a "tournament".  Tournaments are sometimes televised.  Made for TV programs are not live tournaments. 2005 20:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the exactly the thing that seems funny about these invitational TV tournaments. Since most/all players can be paid and who's invited is determined by sponsorships and good TV personalities (read: assholes) showing the money they "won" for participating is deceptive.  When I look at someone's total winnings I want to use that to judge how good a player she is.  But if a substantial portion of those winnings come from these invitational tournaments, it seems misleading.  For example, a mediocre player who has a "good" TV personality might be a "winning" player merely because they get on TV a lot.  Simply not including invitationals can be misleading in the other direction.  For instance, winning Poker Superstars III is no cake walk, even though it's an invitational.  And Sirex is right, that to leave these out entirely would be misleading in the other direction.  I would like us to have two categories in the infobox, a footnote, or something indicating open tournament and invitational tournament winnings separately.  But I don't really care how we do it, so long as their listed in a way that the reader can pull them apart if she desires.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly fine with including another line for invitational results -- or perhaps a better way to state it, notable invitational results. Getting $1000 from GSN doesn't seem worth a mention, but certainly separately mentioning Duke's $2m is. 2005 20:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Something like this?:

Annie Duke has live open tournament winning in excess of $1,400,000 and with the addition of notable invitationals has over $3,400,000 in winnings


 * Sounds okay. The notable part is good too since we don't need lines talking about $500 or whatever. That styles seems fine, as would making two sentences, the second one starting "Additionally she has earned XXXX in invitational tournaments." 2005 23:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks great to me! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So I'm going to start fixing profiles as I come across them. Would be good to add a line to the style page, or do folks think this discussion is good enough for future/precedent purposes? (Same with the nickname concept above... that could be put into the style article too.) 2005 21:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Some wiktionary help
There is a discussion at Wiktionary about a particularly strange definition of "pot" which came from Merriam Webster. MW claims that "pot" can mean "one round in a poker game". Anybody ever heard of this usage? It was news to me. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe "round" is meant to mean one "hand". That would be, one hand = pot.  Weird, but certainly more logical than to mean a "round" like nine hands. 2005 20:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think that's the idea. I just looked it up at The Dictionary of Poker and he has a similar definition (the time between the deal and the showdown in a hand).  Strange, I've never heard this usage. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

WSOP Main Event six-handed?
I just noticed that all the WSOP articles from '71 to '00 lists 6-handed final tables for the main event. Hasn't the WSOP always used 9-handed final tables? - PatrikR 06:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it was six handed for many years. 2000 sounds about right, but I'm not sure about the date when they made the change. (I assume you mean by "final table" = "come back and play the last day".  Of course when there were seven people they were all sitting at one table.) 2005 06:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * By "final table" I mean what the WSOP means, and according to a comment by the commentators on one of the 2007 broadcasts, that's the final 9 players. (In full table NLTH.) - PatrikR 07:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not clear on your question then, but... prior to 2000, the final day was started six-handed. 2005 09:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My understanding has been that they have always been 9 handed tables, but that the final 6 were the only one's who were broadcasted.Balloonman 14:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be the WPT, which has the last six players for the "TV" Final table broadcast.
 * This is what I found in my research regarding the WSOP Main Event Final table.▪◦▪ЅiREXTalk 17:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The WPT uses the WSOP's old practice. 20th century WSOP play was nine-handed, but they stopped at six people for the final day, which was normally televised by someone. I'm still not sure about this question. Are some people thinking that when there were 8 people left that they had two four-handed tables? That's not the way it was. They played normally, like the WPT does now, with nine people starting at the final table, but the televised final six is what they call the "final table." In other words when they say "final table" they mean "televised table". 2005 21:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think what is being asked is if 6 or 9 players should be listed at the final table, in 2006 the answer is clearly yes, nine players. 2006_World_Series_of_Poker
 * But what about the 2000 WSOP, is the TV final six official? or does 3 more players needed to be added?
 * i.e. 2000_World_Series_of_Poker
 * also the 1996 WSOP wasn't televised yet list only six for the final http://www.conjelco.com/wsop96/bigdance3.html ▪◦▪ЅiREXTalk 21:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, if nine are known, that is what I'd list. You are at the final table if you are at the last table, so it seems silly to not list 7 - 9 if you know who they are, especially on bio pages. 2005 22:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * NO, we can not just do that, we need to know what is officially counted, it affects record standings, if player smith made 5 so-called final tables and player brown made 3 final tables, but it turns out smith placed 7-9 in 4 of them, we would being conducting original research to say smith made 5, I going to write and hopefully get a response from the official WSOP website asking them to add a section in this matter, them writing me back wouldn't do much good, they would have to list officially for everyone to see at their site. if the question is ever asked who are the top ten poker players to make it to the final table at the main event what would that answer be? do you see what I mean?▪◦▪ЅiREXTalk 23:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the point. Coming is seventh is making the final table.  It's not original research to read a result sheet.  Some games have 8 players at a table, some are nine. It makes no sense for someone who came in 7th in 2003 to be listed as making the final table when someone who came in 7th in 1993 did not.  More to the point though, the info box doesn't have final tables, and it should not, and neither does the WSOP anwhere, so the point is moot.  We should not compile an original research statistic. 2005 00:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about the infobox but this 2000_World_Series_of_Poker, why does this quote exist "It was also the first year that there were nine players at the final table instead of six" above about the 2001 wsop, if you are saying it it because of tv only well the 1996 wsop wasn't on tv yet also list six players for the FT http://www.conjelco.com/wsop96/bigdance3.html, if going to fill in the data for who was known to be at the final table 1971-2000 shouldn't we be correct on how it is officially counted? ▪◦▪ЅiREXTalk 03:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well again I'm not sure what you are wondering. As I said, the final day was six handed. 2005 05:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, very informative. Perhaps someone should write a paragraph for the WSOP article on this subject (number of players at the "official final table"). I'm probably not the last person that will be confused by it. :) - PatrikR 09:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Full Tilt Online Poker Series (FTOPS)
should i start a wikipedia article about it? we already have one about the WCOOP.Chiyocide 07:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a notable online tournament series on its own, that has both online and brick and mortar professional as participants, it also receives coverage from poker news sources such as pokernews.com as well as cardplayer.com I can't see why not. ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 10:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Erin Ness
The Erin Ness article has been placed on AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erin Ness I remembered that she received a great deal of media coverage in 2004, which included her being featured in the multi platform video game World Championship Poker 2 as well as being invited on the television show Poker Royale: Battle of the Ages yet she has very few live tournament results, any thoughts? ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 20:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I never edited her article but I seen others in the project have, After further research I decided to response on the AfD itself. ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 22:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Her notability is primarly as a celebrity, rather than for poker accomplishments, but in terms of that celebrity it is extremely widespread plainly qualifying her, WP:BIO, for an article. 2005 22:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

WSOPE
What are your guys thoughts on the WSOPE bracelets that are about to be awarded? Do we want to add a section to the infobox that specifies WSOPE bracelets or include them with the WSOP bracelet count? Also, do we want to have a WSOPE Final Table count? That definately doesn't belong in the main event final table count, but I think it is now a noteworthy enough event to get it's own billing.Balloonman 02:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * They definitely aren't WSOP bracelets, and like Circuit events should not be in the info box. As this is the first year of the event I wouldn't consider stats from it noteworthy enough for anything besides table in the WSOPE section... meaning how we have 2007 World Series of Poker we could have a page like that linked from the main WSOPE article.  2005 02:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * On the one hand I agree with you, but on the other hand, these bracelets are going to be considered true WSOP bracelets. IMHO it is kind of devaluing the prestige of the bracelets, but they ARE WSOP bracelets and will be included in the official count.  As such, this event arrives with instant notability.  The WSOP doesn't regard this as a circuit event, but rather a continuation of the WSOP. If we don't have a way of including them on the info box, then our infoboxes will be out of sync with WSOP stats.  So, IMHO, we either have to add a count for WSOPE bracelets or include them with the "real" braclets.  Not including them, is not (IMO) an option.Balloonman 03:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Who is going to consider them "true" WSOP events? Nobody, except perhaps some marketing guy somewhere.  They are WSOPE events.  The only way these should be included with WSOP stats is after the WSOP official site does, if it does.  Our job is just to parrot that, so there really is nothing for us to decide about it.  If the WSOP wants to award an event championship or a bracelet for any reason and it include it in their stats, then that is what we report... unless we choose to drop the infoboxes altogther, which is always an option. 2005 03:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Then we are going to have to include them. Harrah's casino considers them to be true bracelets---"Tonight, Thomas Bihl becomes the first person to win a WSOP bracelet outside of Las Vegas and has etched himself a permanent place in poker history." or Pollock And these will be bracelet events - there'll be three of them - and that's something only we can do.  Phil Helmuth "I'm going to London to make history again by winning the first WSOP bracelet ever awarded outside of Las Vegas."  So until I see that the WSOP is treating these bracelets differently, all indication is that they are not.  by counting them, they lend the prestige of the "real" events to the WSOPE.Balloonman 04:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's interesting... per the press release "Harman had hoped to add a third WSOP bracelet to her total today at the 2007 WSOP Europe....Bihl emerged victorious ... and a coveted WSOP bracelet" Clearly indicating that he bracelet is considered a WSOP bracelet.  But if you look at Bihl's statistics on his official page, it recognizes his victory, but hasn't added a bracelet to his official count or updated his cash totals for WSOP events.  My prediction.  They will count the WSOPE bracelet as official bracelets when counting total bracelets... but will then break it down by WSOP/WSOPE bracelets.  IF they do that, then my original question becomes valid again.Balloonman 05:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume we should just wait a few days. If they break them down, then we need to.  At the same time it is a problem with the info boxes where they list "bracelets" not "titles" as the WPT.  The bracelet is irrelevant.  The title is the the important point.  If they didn't give a bracelet fro some event in 1982, who cares?  The point is the person won a WSOP title.  I don't know if the boxes were changed at some point, but they should list "titles" consistently for both the WSOP and WPT otherwise they are an apples/oranges thing. 2005 10:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are proposing that we change the WSOP section to "Title" rather than "bracelet" then I completely disagree. The WSOP has come to use the term "bracelet" as synonymous with title.  Even people who won events prior to 1976, when the first bracelets were awarded, are considered bracelet winners.  If we started calling it "title" winners, then that would not jive with accepted usage and would look awkward to people familiar with Poker.  For example, Amarillo Slim is officially called a 4 time bracelet winner despite the fact that two of his bracelets came prior to 1976.Balloonman 20:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * C'mon there isn't anyone on the planet who would misunderstand "title". Bracelet is a synonym for title, not the other way around.  The issue here though is we are an encyclopedia where statements are literal, not slangy or somewhat accurate.  If someone did not get a piece of jewelry, then they didn't, but they did win a title.  If the official site wants to say someone has a "bracelet" who didn't get one, perhaps we can ignore that, but if the WSOPE creates other issues, then our most obvious solution is to state facts as they are.  But again, discussing how we handle it before they decide how they will handle it is a cart before the horse thing. 2005 21:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Definitely include these bracelets with the other ones in the infoboxes etc. Harrah's owns the WSOP and decides what it is. They have decided to export it outside Las Vegas and award real bracelets, unlike in the circuit events. Case closed. - PatrikR 20:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes if the Harrah's counts the WSOPE into the bracelet count well thats that, but there is another problem that needs to be worked out, right now Gus Hansen is going to place higher in the 2007 WSOPE Main Event then he did in the (US) 2007 WSOP Main Event (61th) it would look odd to mix the two as it would be outright misleading no matter where he places in the 2007 WSOPE without a separate World Series of Poker Europe section, here is a beta test I made in a sandbox (SANDBOX TEST with Hansen Coming in First ;-) ) ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 21:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if the WSOPE Main Event deserves that type of attention yet... I think the WPT World Championship has more respect than the WSOPE Main Event. I consider the WSOPE Main Event to be on par with the 50K H.O.R.S.E. one of the more prestigious events at the WSOP, but not quite to the main Main Event. But I do think if Gus wins, that it will be the ultimate test as to how people view the bracelet.  Will he get the respect as a WSOP bracelet winner? It would be hard to discount his victory and hard to discount him as a bracelet winner.  I think it would go a lot further in bringing prestige/recognition to the WSOPE than if another unknown wins.  Of course, that's just my opinion.Balloonman 21:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Mute point now for Gus "the bubbleboy" Hansen!Balloonman 05:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah so sick QQ vs KK's oh well, this should be interesting final table anyways, there are 3 Brits, 2 Swedes, 2 Norwegians, 1 Dane and 1 American (the chip leader), one of the Norwegians is a Girl that started playing online poker at the age of 15 (now 18) playing freerolls that she claims (and I believe) made her money without a single deposit, I think being the youngest ever wsop final table player and the only female to make at the first WSOPE ME FT, I think that I'm going to start an article on her no matter where she places. 'Annette_15' Obrestad▪◦▪<b style="background:#4444ee;color:#bbbbff">≡ЅiREX≡</b><b style="background:#4444ee;color:#bbbbff">Talk</b> 06:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're too late... I've already created an article on her! Annette Obrestad and she's now 19 not 18. :P Balloonman 08:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, you beat me to it, she's chip leader now 3 handed, in her article the line "was allowed to play despite the fact that she would not turn nineteen until 2 days after the final table at the main event." I think this should be changed, the part "was allowed to play despite the fact" implies she is being allowed to do something with special treatment, It is perfectly allowable in the WSOPE, Anyone 18 or older can play, the line would make sense if she was allowed to play in the US where the age requirement is 21, mention above ▪◦▪<b style="background:#4444ee;color:#bbbbff">≡ЅiREX≡</b><b style="background:#4444ee;color:#bbbbff">Talk</b> 20:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

new source of poker info
I am interested in poker, particularly playing online, and have been viewing a number of online poker sites for content to help improve my game and knowledge of the game. I saw some good articles on a site that provided articles on the basics of deposits and promotions (I know I get confused by all the promotions offered) and some great articles on poker strategy (advanced strategy) that I haven't read elsewhere. I think this content might be a valuable contribution to the poker content that has been posted. I was wondering...would it be better to just add a link to this site or actually rewrite the content for publishing on Wikipedia and reference site as the source? Meridiangold 23:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well any links added should follow WP:ADS, WP:EL for external links and WP:RS for references, links and refs should be relevant to their articles, being this is an encyclopedia and not a howto guide see WP:NOT, information in articles about poker should be encyclopedic in nature, which is why there are articles on Poker_strategy, which isn't meant to improve the readers game but to give information on how the game is played, some of the techniques employed as well as the different poker variants out there. there is also information you can find on Wikipedia's sister project Wikibooks about poker ▪◦▪<b style="background:#4444ee;color:#bbbbff">≡ЅiREX≡</b><b style="background:#4444ee;color:#bbbbff">Talk</b> 07:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

 * 12 September 2007 - expires 17 September
 * Amir Nasseri ( PROD by User:Lid; "Nasseri finished 11th in the 2002 World Series of Poker main event, winning $70,000." ) --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Pamela Brunson
Pamela Brunson is a burgeoning poker player and daughter of the poker legend and the "Godfather of Poker", Doyle Brunson [Doyle Brunson]. Pamela has placed high in a number of big poker events in her career, most recently beating 125 participants to win the 2007 Legends of Poker Ladies - No Limit Hold'em - event at The Bicycle Casino ( a popular poker destination in California), with a first prize worth over $34,000. Due to winning this event, she will be participating in the WPT Ladies Night Out. Should she win the WPT Ladies Night event, she will claim a seat (worth $25,000 alone) at the WPT World Championship at the Bellagio held in April, 2008. Meridiangold 22:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * note: I moved Meridiangold question/comment here from Talk:Female poker players being that there is no such article ▪◦▪<b style="background:#4444ee;color:#bbbbff">≡ЅiREX≡</b><b style="background:#4444ee;color:#bbbbff">Talk</b> 07:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Help needed in Wiktionary
Could some of you head over to the English Wiktionary and add some basic poker terms? I noticed that there are many terms missing in Wiktionary. I tried to add the poker definition of nuts, but kept having to revise it many times until I got it right. Some missing basic poker defiinitions on Wiktionary include "bad beat" and "runner-runner". By the way, there is a category for poker terms at wikt:Category:Poker. Jesse Viviano 22:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

PokerTracker
An article about PokerTracker was created and then marked for deletion, this software is used all the time online but I'm not sure if it would pass notable guideline or would be an exception to them.I been unable to find sells figures for the software or awards etc..▪◦▪<b style="background:#4444ee;color:#bbbbff">≡ЅiREX≡</b><b style="background:#4444ee;color:#bbbbff">Talk</b> 18:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * One thing we don't need is an article about every one of these products, or every one of the ranking sites, or every e-book, etc. Pokertracker is a product people use, but it is just one of many -- all of which could use almost the exact same text to describe them.  A shopping guide could call out different product features of this type of software, but we aren't a shopping guide.  We need to be viligant to keep these trivial product articles out of the poker space. 2005 22:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone heard of this before
Asia Pacific Poker Tour, is this note worthy? -▪◦▪<b style="background:#4444ee;color:#bbbbff">≡ЅiREX≡</b><b style="background:#4444ee;color:#bbbbff">Talk</b> —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have mixed feelings about it... on the one hand, currently, it probably isn't quite there yet as a major tournament, but it does have quite a few ghits. I'm inclined to keep it.Balloonman 06:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It merits an article, but not a listing in the major tournament template. (Yet anyway.) 2005 08:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * AgreedBalloonman 16:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Template
I have a proposal that we add a line to the Infobox. The line I would propose is "as of" being added to the tournament information section. The problem we have right now is that the infoboxes are often incorrect. A person makes it to the money, but the infobox isn't updated. Or it gets updated by somebody, then somebody else updates it again simply by adding a cash. If we included an "As Of" date in the Infobox, it would allow us to indicate that the information is correct as of a given date. I would propose making this box invisible unless filled in. Similar to the way we have nicknames.Balloonman 22:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Lee Jones
The Lee Jones (writer) article has been nominated for deletion because the nominator thinks being known in the poker world is not a valid reason for an article. Jones is interesting because he directly meets each of the points for a creative professional under WP:BIO... well-known, well-reviewed, ground-breaking work (no one had written specifically about low limit poker before him), and of course his contribution to creating PokerStars. 2005 04:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What a ridiculous and absurd nomination. Rray 04:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Damn... the nom snowballed before I could participate in it! What a frivolous nomination.Balloonman 06:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Please also note comments being made at Administrators' noticeboard.--Alf <sup style="color:green;">melmac 09:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it was not a frivolous nomination, and you should assume good faith. Being known in the world of poker does not read as a claim to notability to people who are outside of that (closed) world.  You can avoid these problems by adding more sources establishing the significance of the subject, for example write-ups in specialist magazines and non-trivial in the mainstream press. This approach works for all classes of article, of course. Guy (Help!) 11:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are tags that can be added to an article to indicate possible lack of notability and the need for more sources. The article also has a talk page where problems with the article could have been sorted out. An AfD wasn't the appropriate step to take in this case. Rray 12:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It was obviously a frivilous nomination. Whether it was a deliberate nuisance nomination is another thing.  You need to assume good faith, as should the original nominator.  Stating a person unknown outside of poker can't have an article is a ludicrous and offensive reason to nominate something.  Just because the nominator doesn't think something is important doesn't mean they can ignore the thousands of plainly obvious mentions of notability online, which the article does assert.  Instead of yet another frivilous nomination the nominator could have added a more references tag, not editorialized how someone in this niche somehow doesn't deserve notability or respect. 2005 00:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: The closure was overturned--it was prematurely closed. As a result of its being closed prematurely, it probably won't be closed now until the normal period expires---even if the results are obvious.Balloonman 22:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a little surprised the reason for this to be turned down was mainly because he wasn't known outside of the poker community/world. That's a little bit faulty in hindsight, imo. Glad to see that it came to a speedy keep.Yoryx 10:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Tokwiro Enterprises
To date we have treated every online gambling gambling company the same, that is, giving them one article for their various skins and related companies. We don't have separate articles for PartyBets, PartyBingo and PartyPoker. We have one article for PartyGaming. Similarly Carmen Media, Fortune Lounge Group and others are treated the same way. We don't have separate articles for every cardroom and casino owned by these companies. I finally merged the UltimateBet and AbsolutePoker articles under an article for their common owner, Tokwiro Enterprises, since there is no reason to treat them "special" and certainly no reason to now change the existing practice and break out articles for every branch of these online gambling companies. A user went and reverted the changes, which I've fixed again, but it appears we probably should come to a consensus again that, first, all these companies should get the same sort of treatment, and second, that that treatment is to give the parent company a full-scale article detailing its holdings, and redirect the various names/skins/tentacles of the company to the company's article. If however there is consensus to change this behavior and make articles for every tentacle that has web notoriety on its own, then we need to breakout a dozen or two articles out of the existing article structure we have. Finally I am assuming no one thinks the two Tokwiro cardrooms deserve preferential treatment. 2005 00:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I really don't have a problem either way so this may not be helpful, as it stands now with such short articles on UB and AB the merge seem fine, if in the future the UB and AB game rooms/sections grow in size then they should be split off, such as Yum! Brands that owns Kentucky Fried Chicken, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell and others, I know it apple and oranges to compare these billion/multi-billion dollar companies, but even in the small sense, it can be argued that the online gaming room of UB and AB have grown the be known on their own Individual bases, but due to such small articles I see nothing wrong with merger/#redirects, a few years from now it may be a different story if not sooner. anyway thats my two cents. ▪◦▪<b style="background:#4444ee;color:#bbbbff">≡ЅiREX≡</b><b style="background:#4444ee;color:#bbbbff">Talk</b> 01:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Clearly both PartyGaming and PartyPoker would both meet the WP:WEB requirements for separate articles, but part of the reason articles were originally merged back in 2005 was, to understate it, a lot of Wiki contributors think all these online companies are evil, especially in a spammy sense. Having multiple articles about different shades of companies was not looked on with much favor. On top of that, the nature of poker rooms "skins" is they can generate plenty of press to merit an article from a WP:WEB persepective, but currently we just have an article on the actual cardroom, like Playtech or Microgaming.  Having articles for the skins that do meet WP:WEB, and arguments over what does and doesn't meet WEB, seems a headache and an invitation to haters to come in and just slash articles in an inconsistent way.  I agree that perhaps we can revist this again in the future, but at this point the existing policy seems to work very well, with focused articles, where companies with innumerable brands aren't favored over companies with a single major brand, and where everything with an article pretty clearly merits one. 2005 02:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The difference here (with, say Prima skins) is that UB and Absolute were two totally unconnected companies now under common ownership (so far as I can tell). They're not even on the same poker networks. They're entirely seperate in the minds of most people and should be documented that way. I mean, who the hell are Tokwiro Enterprises to the average reader?! --kingboyk 02:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The same can be said about Empire Poker and Party Poker, or Interpoker and Playboy Poker. Please look at Cassava Enterprises.  Obviously both 888.com and Pacific Poker are more known, but the established way of dealing with this is the current way with Cassava.  We can decide to change that if we want, AFTER discussion, but till then please revert your changes as they are inconsistent and inappropriate. 2005 02:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't need separate articles about every cardroom and every casino run by these companies. Not in the case of UB and Absolute Poker, or in any of the other cases either. Having a redirect from the Ultimate Bet and Absolute Poker sections makes good sense though, but having separate articles does not. There's just only so much encyclopedic content available about an online cardroom, and almost all of what's encyclopedic about the cardroom has to do with its business enterprises. And content about the business enterprise logically belongs in an article about the company rather than the individual cardrooms. Rray 02:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am interested in hearing an argument for keeping the two as separate companies. I think 2005 has made a very strong case for joining them under one umbrella.Balloonman 03:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My inclination is to make the policy size dependent instead of a one-fits-all policy. So long as the encyclopedic material on each cardroom is small, we should do what we're doing now (one article for the parent company).  But, if the amount of encyclopedic material grows too large, for instance if there is a lot more interesting things regarding the Absolute scandal, we should spin it off.  So, I'm in favor of the current policy as a default position, and a particular case should be made (based on the size of the article) to deviate.  But, it's not a hard-and-fast rule.  In the case of UB and Absolute, there really isn't that much on either, so keeping them in one article is cool.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The online gaming industry is still pretty small in the scheme of the overall gaming economy. Sirex mentioned Yum! Brands as an example of a series of articles where the subsidiary companies are better known than the parent and thus have their own articles.  Realize, though, that fast food is a very mature industry. If I remember correctly, all of the brands under Yum! were originally separate companies.  How about if we set the current way of doing things (main article about parent company) as a guideline, and revisit and review individual articles as needed?
 * As far as AP and UB are concerned - What Kzollman said. I'm for moving everything to one article about the parent company. The content of both the AP and UB articles is fairly minimal as it is. ♣  ♦  SmartGuy  ♥  ♠ 07:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to reiterate, my concerns are consistency, and having a consensus for that consistency. Pacific, 888, Casino on net each had afd discussions, and one sensible conclusion (to make one corporate article) came out of it, but we have to be conscious of the fact that the Wikipedia is a powerful destination website. We don't want spammers/company employees coming here and making multiple articles for their own company, while even afd'ing multiple articles for other companies.  The AP/UB thing should be looked at as part of how we deal with these companies IN GENERAL, not as a separate issue just because somebody wants to make the sites an exception to how all the others are dealt with.  If however people wanted to make separate articles, then we should go about splitting up the Cassava one for sure as well as Partygaming and (maybe most obviously) Bodog.  That just sounds like a big can of worms to me that we can avoid... particularly since as Rray mentions, the encyclopedic content is mostly in the parent business, not in repeating in various places that some site offers hold 'em and stud and so on. 2005 07:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There is also the fact that there are not many "big players" in the online gaming industry, as it is still fragmented and in its infancy. Keeping the content organized into articles about the parent company should help out both in terms of article organization and avoidance of spam/vanity articles. ♣  ♦  SmartGuy  ♥  ♠ 07:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said, you make a very strong argument... it's not something that I've given much thought to... so I invited a response, but have yet to see any.Balloonman 08:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to Document the Absolute Poker Cheating Scandal
Greetings. I attempted to document the Absolute Poker Cheating Scandal in some of the WP articles, such as Poker, Holdem, Online Poker, etc. but it was promptly deleted. It is in the Absolute Poker article, but it seemed to me to be of such significance to be included in some other articles as well. The moderator who deleted them stated "...that really isn't quite notable enough for inclusion on most of the pages you're putting it on; it's a very specific topic that you're putting in general articles.". I may be too inept to be able to edit on this, but I did try. Well documented at http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=12588986&an=0&page=51#Post12588986 and many other places including major news networks, Google: Absolute Poker cheating  Myth America 19:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I see discussion of the cheating scandal at the new page that 2005 rewrote (see above discussion), so I don't know if your question still exists?Balloonman 20:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's mentioned in the AP article and the online poker article, and is externally linked from the cheating in poker article. Obviously it is inappropriate for the Texas hold 'em article and almost all other poker articles.  It is mentioned where it should be, with proper sources.  It could/should be incorporated better in the cheating in poker article, and of course text can always be improved, but it is mentioned on the pages it should be mentioned. 2005 01:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Myth I suggest that you check out WP:RS and WP:IA and then work on improving the coverage of the scandal in the Absolute and Cheating in poker articles. ♣ ♦  SmartGuy  ♥  ♠ 04:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

PokerPlayer magazine
PokerPlayer magazine has been nominated for deletion. Balloonman 07:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * balloonman - I edited your comments to fix some broken links - link to the AFD did not work. ♣ ♦  SmartGuy  ♥  ♠ 07:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about this magazine as it is a UK magazine it appears that links to it official site were being used in external links in many poker player articles including single EL's such as Nick the Greek here, it was listed as coming from mostly a Single-purpose account and there for may be WP:COI, also listed at WikiProject_Spam for the link drops, the article state its Publish by Dennis Publishing, I'm not really sure about this one, I'm doing a little research. ▪◦▪<b style="background:#4444ee;color:#bbbbff">≡ЅiREX≡</b><b style="background:#4444ee;color:#bbbbff">Talk</b> 07:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hu12 put the article up for AFD and removed all of the links. I reverted the links back in to the poker player articles, because the articles in the magazine seemed okay and not spammy.  If there is a conflict or a problem with the links, then we will need to give a decent review to all of the other external links in player profile articles as well.  I left Hu12 a message on his talk page, inviting him to come here and comment. ♣  ♦  SmartGuy  ♥  ♠ 07:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The link revisions should be discused at WT:WPSPAM, as there ia significant issue with the publisher spamming them. see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam--Hu12 08:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Previously it appeared the publisher spammed multiple external links for multiple of its magazines. Some of these have been reverted when they were added en masse, but some/many were added two or three at a time.  many of the links are very valid if you look at them individually, but the singular focus of merely adding these links makes it egregious spam -- especially when including multiple magazines.  As such I think removing them all is appropriate, but any legitimate editor should feel free to add links to the better of these articles (some of the linked pages are not bad, others are trivial).  In other words, the Spam project probably should get rid of everything from all the magazines, then we can go from there and non-COI editors can add some when appropriate. 2005 08:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It look that the magazine itself is known in the UK, on a google search found that it has hosted freerolls for bodog, it such a pain that someone employed at a legit web site/magazines drops link on wikipedia when they may be added anyway for legit reasons by other users (although the SPA may just be a fan of the mag and not a employ), I thought to myself about something like this happening on the wiki before, it make for an throwing the baby out the the bath water dilemma, such as what to do if an employ @ big Publisher were to do this, such as the Publishers of Time, Rolling stone, Golf digest magazines etc. link drops, such a headache do you rid them all or just the SPA, I agree with User:2005 solution.▪◦▪<b style="background:#4444ee;color:#bbbbff">≡ЅiREX≡</b><b style="background:#4444ee;color:#bbbbff">Talk</b> 09:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Bio articles
WP:BIO is the notability guideline for biography articles. Different subject areas have their own sub-criteria, none of which cover poker players very well. Fortunately, I don't think this is much of a problem since the main BIO criteria cover the territory nicely, that is...
 * The person must have been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.
 * If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability.
 * Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.

Thus poker personalities simply need a few reliable, third party articles about them... and to demonstrate that they are "poker" bios, they need to have some amount of success playing or supervising or promoting poker. This means a player with even one successful tournament, who is written up all over the media for some reason, can get an article. It also means a live game, non-tournament player can get an article too if there are third party articles attesting to his/her notability (in other words, a very successful high stakes player who doesn't play tournaments). What we need to prevent, I think, are Wiki articles about some guy with one 5th place finish in a major tournament where there aren't any third party articles where he is the focus. The one possible grey area is Wiki articles on players who won a World series of Poker title before 2000. I'd say that this achievement alone would merit an article, since some of these guys dies 20+ years ago and the coverage on them is usually widespread (listed as winners on thousands of websites) but they won't have interviews or profiles or online news stories focused exclusively on them.

So I'd like to just add a section to the project page that simply repeats the text quoted from WP:BIO above, plus "Any winner of a World Series of Poker event before 2000 may also be the the subject of an article."

I don't think we need to go into more detail about poker achievements because a single achievment will sometimes be enough, while other times a mass of mediocre ones will do the trick. What y'all think? 2005 (talk) 07:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree but I think this idea need to be revisited. In order to make thing clearer to those not familiar to the subject as well as those that are.as you said "none of which cover poker players very well." ▪◦▪<b style="background:#4444ee;color:#bbbbff">≡ЅiREX≡</b><b style="background:#4444ee;color:#bbbbff">Talk</b> 07:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that ANYBODY who has won a WSOP bracelet or WPT Title deserves a page. Even if they are one hit wonders, their notability is at least on par with a professional athlete who sits the bench.  For the rest of their lives, they will be introduced at poker events as "the 200X WSOP bracelet winner."    I think if we are going to create our own guidelines, then we need to flesh it out more along the lines of what I proposed a few months ago.  TBalloonman (talk) 07:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree with you BM,wsop and wpt winners clear meet WP:N, what brought up this topic for reference is this AfD. ▪◦▪<b style="background:#4444ee;color:#bbbbff">≡ЅiREX≡</b><b style="background:#4444ee;color:#bbbbff">Talk</b> 08:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think what you proposed was much too restrictive and went off in a "too much detail" direction. I can easily agree that a WSOP or WPT title merits an article, but the reverse certainly is not true... you don't need to win a major title to have an article.  There are some players who are notable for being, basically, lousy players.  That's fine.  We don't need to only have articles about good players.  They just need to meet the "subject of published secondary source material" criteria.  I don't see a need to try and legislate making our criteria more stringent than WP:BIO.  We just need to fine tune it.  In other words... having a hendon mob page is not "subject of published secondary source material" since everybody with any finish at all gets a page like that.  On the other hand, NOT having a hendon mob page shows the person has no tournament finishes, so any that are asserted are 99% baloney.
 * Sort of on the same note, I've been going through the stub articles, and the one up for AFD was the weakest of the bunch, with maybe only three others being maybe questionable, so we don't have many articles (among the stubs anyway) that are vanity crap, so we've been handling things pretty well up to now. 2005 (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, the reverse isn't always necessary... but in those cases the other guidelines for notability comes into play. For example, Lee Jones wouldn't fit the proposed guidelines, but he is clearly notable in the poker world... and thus has other sources... he passes for other reasons.  The guidelines I proposed are ones to establish what we consider to be the equivalent to "Professional athlete" status.  A guy who wins a minor tournament, such as the one in the above AFD, is more comperable to a non-notable actor.Balloonman (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A comprable comparison would be to athletes. A football player who plays in the pros is by definition notable.  That doesn't mean that a one has to be a professional football player to have an article.  Katie Hnida never made it to the pro's, but is a very notable college football player.  The list that I created would be to establish a threshold of what we consider to be "by default" notables... that would not mean that it supplants the general guidelines of BIO.Balloonman (talk) 08:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe we are agreeing, but I'm not sure. WP:BIO is basically a somewhat low, but sensible threshold. I can't imagine why we would make a guideline that makes less bio articles than the guideline. We nearly need to repeat what is said in BIO, then say in ADDITION that all WSOP and WPT winners deserve articles.  The key concept though has to be "in addition".  If some guy with one 17th place finish manages to get a lot of web/media attention because he wears green paint when playing, then BIO says he can have an article. 2005 (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we are agreeing... I think WP:BIO is the base. If a person qualifies for an article under the guidelines established there, then they are notable. The problem that I have with BIO, in regards to poker, is that it doesn't work very well. Poker Players fall somewhere inbetween Athletes and Entertainers. The guidelines for Athletes clearly doesn't work, as it assumes that anybody who participates in a professional league or at the highest level of the amateur competition is notable. That's not true with Poker as anybody who can ante up the buy in can play. Thus, we, as a project, need to define how we define a fully professional/highest level of amateur play. With poker these terms are ubiquituous. A player may be a professional poker player, but barely makes a living. While others may be amateurs and make more from Poker than they do from their "real job." I would propose that the following guidelines be used to identify players who are competing at the highest level: These criteria are not all encompassing and do not limit other poker players who would otherwise qualify per WP:BIO, but it would eliminate the claim that "player X played in the WSOP which is the highest level of Poker, thus is notable." Yes, this system would favor tournament players over cash players. But Tournament players are better known and cash players can still get in if they can pass BIO in another way. It does not, however, address Online-Players. But I believe online players should have to establish themselves via BIO.Balloonman (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Won a WSOP/WPT or other Major tournament. Major tournaments can be defined as those included on the template. {Edit: 2005 pointed out that the template sucks... it has some non-major tournaments on it.)  I would define Major in this context as WSOP/WPT/PPT/EPT/USPO/Aussie Millions and probably one or two other events.
 * Finished at the final table of the WSOP Main Event, WSOPE Main Event, or WPT World Championship.
 * Has been invited to participate in the Professional Poker Tour.
 * Has been inducted into the Poker Hall of Fame. (EDIT: Or European Poker Hall of Fame)
 * Finished at at least 3 WSOP/WPT final tables.
 * Is a known regular at the "Big Game".
 * Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
 * Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.


 * First, just as a general comment, we do need to prevent (and BIO basically does) articles about every online guy who has won a few sit and gos and puts up an article. Then, while I appreciate what you are trying to do, what you are suggesting is people qualify if they do the above but don't have multiple third party material written about them.  This will be extremely rare... especially the "cult following" statement.  Anyone with a "large" cult following will have at least two articles about them online, so it seems to me that line would never be needed.  Then, "known regular" in the Big game requires reliable sources otherwise every dingbat will just say that.  Finally I don't like the major tournament line at all, as it is too subjective.  The USPO and Aussie Milions are no more major (and actually less major) than the WPO, Legends of Poker, LA Poker Classic, Foxwoods and a few others.  I'd limit the 'automatic pass' to winners of the WSOP, WPT and EPT.  Also the PPT tournaments were pretty small and it seems to be a thing of the past so let's just not mention the PPT. 2005 (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, most of the above guidelines would be replicatable via normal wp:BIO guidelines, but the reason for adding them anyway is because it establishes guidance on what the poker community views as notable. We write the guidance for poker player notability in such a way that it is clear that it is only guidance and does not preclude others.  How about the following:

Wikiproject Poker deems the following events as inherently notable events: ''Other poker players must be able to establish their notability via secondary sources and the normal guidelines as defined by WP:BIO. Winning other major tournaments (including but not limited to Aussie Millions, USPO, Legends of Poker, LA Poker Classic, Foxwoods) is not in and of itself sufficient notability to warrant an article, but can help establish a player's notability. As most poker tournaments are open events, participating in or "making the money" rarely adds to the notability of a poker player. On-line poker players must be able to establish notability independent of the poker sites they play on and sites that simply track online results.''Balloonman (talk) 08:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Won a WSOP/WSOPE/WPT/EPT or other Major tournament. 
 *  Finished at the final table of the WSOP Main Event, WSOPE Main Event, or WPT World Championship. Winning a million dollars in a single event at an established tournament.
 * Has been inducted into the Poker Hall of Fame or European Poker Hall of Fame.


 * That seems good (though I'd prefer just the WSOP final table as the "one million dollars for a single tournament" thing is the big notable thing for me... the $130k for ninth in the WSOPE just seems not close to the same impressiveness at this point). One change I think should be is of "the poker community" I'd say this project... WP:POKER (assuming there isn't disagreement of course.  (Seperate thing, fyi, the Hall of Fame cats were deleted in an obscure Cfd a few days ago, so reestablishing them may get you some commentary from people who obsess about those sort of things.) 2005 (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, that's wierd, they didn't give me the usual message about recreating a deleted page when I created them. But thanks for the heads up.Balloonman (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)  Just looked at the log for both of the categories that I created, and neither of them have logs (EG if similar categories had been just deleted, then I was unaware of it and the name was different thus, Wikipedia was unaware of it.)  How about the revision above.Balloonman (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I was about to say "great" but then I noticed one contradiction, the lines "... or other Major tournament" and "... Winning other major tournaments (including but not limited to Aussie Millions, USPO, Legends of Poker, LA Poker Classic, Foxwoods) is not in and of itself sufficient..."  Major is used basically differently in one line than another.  So I'd either take it out of the first part and just leave "WSOP/WSOPE/WPT/EPT" or add wording that says as of this date those are the only ones but a future one we don't know about now could be similar in "major-ness".  Since we do know exactly what tournaments have existed to this point, we can just decide what has met this criteria and say that, and then leave open the possiblility that some similar tournament will come along in the future, but that at this point all other tournaments aren't at that same level 9even though they help to prove BIO notability). 2005 (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed.Balloonman (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Confusing part of infobox
I know that it means it was in a special tournament, but next to cashes and final tables on some of the players infoboxes have like 2(+1) for an example. These pages have nothing explaining what that (+1) means which could confuse a lot of people. I think it needs to have an explanation or something somewhere on the page. --Crazy4metallica (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right it does, the 0(+1) mean that the poker player won(or placed) a closed or invitational tournament, take Tony_G who won the WPT Bad Boys of Poker II, a winner-takes-all invitational with prize of $25,000, but is not really a WPT title with that said it does need an explanation for readers of the articles, a link maybe the that acts like a KEY guide.▪◦▪<b style="background:#4444ee;color:#bbbbff">≡ЅiREX≡</b><b style="background:#4444ee;color:#bbbbff">Talk</b> 01:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * edit conflicted... I didnt know what it mean eitherBalloonman (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm looks like we have secret poker cabal!!! ;-) ▪◦▪<b style="background:#4444ee;color:#bbbbff">≡ЅiREX≡</b><b style="background:#4444ee;color:#bbbbff">Talk</b> 01:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've never liked that at all... except it makes perfect sense when explained. Perhaps it's worth having a separate "Invitationals" line under the titles line -- that wouldn't show if blank. 2005 (talk) 02:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this is probably the best solution. --Crazy4metallica (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll work on it, and let everyone preview the change before adding it.▪◦▪<b style="background:#4444ee;color:#bbbbff">≡ЅiREX≡</b><b style="background:#4444ee;color:#bbbbff">Talk</b> 03:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Poker AFD
Just to let you all know, the Articles for deletion/European Poker Players Hall of Fame and Category European Poker Players Hall of Famehas been placed for deletion. I had never heard of it before, so I'm not really going to fight too hard for this unless somebody can show me that it is notable.Balloonman 21:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Back from Wiki hell
The hijack of the Project's additional notablity into where it should never have been sent was an exercise in futility. prior to that there was a clear consensus among project members for a general guideline. Ballonman already had it there, but i did a few minor wording tweaks to put it in context. It could be tweaked a bit more, but hopefully we can move away from all time wasted on the lawyering resulting from the discussion hijack. 2005 (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Notability Criteria
Tally (9/2/2)

NOTE: I've asked for somebody from the BIO talk page to come and make a ruling on this. Do we have a consensus or not? I don't think any of our regulars can decide because we've all !voted.Balloonman 08:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We could have, but don't need a ruling. The consensus here supports the criteria, but it's still only a guideline so if anybody wants to afd an article that meets the criteria, they can.  But others can object to the afd based on the clear preponderence of opinion here at the Project.  Guidelines are guidelines, not blood oaths. 2005 08:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Poker deems the following events as inherently conveying notable to an individual: ''Other poker players must be able to establish their notability via secondary sources and the normal guidelines as defined by WP:BIO. Winning other major tournaments (including but not limited to Aussie Millions, USPO, Legends of Poker, LA Poker Classic, Foxwoods) is not in and of itself sufficient notability to warrant an article, but can help establish a player's notability. As most poker tournaments are open events, participating in or "making the money" rarely adds to the notability of a poker player. On-line poker players must be able to establish notability independent of the poker sites they play on and sites that simply track online results.''Balloonman (talk) 06:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Winning a WSOP/WSOPE/WPT/EPT event.
 * Winning a million dollars in a single event at an established tournament.
 * Induction into the Poker Hall of Fame or European Poker Hall of Fame. 

NOTE: Removed European Poker Hall of Fame per reasons why the stub was nominated for AfD.

Please indicate your support or opposition to the above criteria here:

Rationale In the past people have tended to use the criteria for athletes as the comparable criteria to be used against Professional Poker Players. This criteria doesn't work for poker players because poker, unlike most sports, can be played by anybody who antes up the buy in. If I have $1,500 I could sign up for a WSOP event and potentially make it to the money. Does that make me notable? No, but a fair number of articles are written with that premise---then the article is taken to AFD and people point to the Athletes criteria for notability. The guidelines above are pretty high ones, that generally anybody who meets them will normally meet BIO in other ways. It is more of a way for us to state that winning a poker tournament does not make you notable. PLaying in the main event does not make you notable. THe automatic passes for notability are much stricter than used by other projects---especially athletics where participating at the professional level or highest level of amateur competition is enough to get you in.Balloonman (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support Balloonman (talk) 06:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support 2005 (talk) 08:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Vicius (talk) 05:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Alan (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Horrorshowj (talk)
 * 6) Support --Crazy4metallica (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support ▪◦▪<b style="background:#4444ee;color:#bbbbff">≡ЅiREX≡</b><b style="background:#4444ee;color:#bbbbff">Talk</b> 05:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Kymacpherson (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 1) 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 Policies and guidelines. &mdash;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: Notability (poker players)), it should be tagged with, it should be added to Category:Wikipedia notability, and it should be added to the "Active proposals" section of . &mdash;gorgan_almighty (talk) 11:19, 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."


 * 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. &mdash;gorgan_almighty (talk) 11:19, 6 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 Notability (sports)?  If so, you should note that that guideline was rejected by the community, for the same reason that this one will be.&mdash;gorgan_almighty (talk) 11:19, 6 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.▪◦▪<b style="background:#4444ee;color:#bbbbff">≡ЅiREX≡</b><b style="background:#4444ee;color:#bbbbff">Talk</b> 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 Notability_%28people%29 - the guidelines for porn actors are a good example. ♣  ♦  SmartGuy  ♥  ♠ 06:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I think this list is very restrictive compared to the other notability guidelines.  Here are some examples:

Any Biography: The person has received significant recognized awards or honors. I do not think EPL Hall of Fame should be excluded. Athletes: Fully Professional. While I agree that a single $55K win doesn't make a professional, I think that if making more than $100K/year for several years does. I think listing certain non-televised tournaments as non notable is ridiculous. A discussion of how much for how long would be valid and the Hendon Mob Poker Database http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/index.php is a very good source of tournament money earned. Entertainers: Significant Roles. I think being invited to play in any nationally televised program or having a cameo as yourself in a major movie as a poker player should signify notability. Creative Professions: Widely cited by peers. If there is sufficient independent information for inclusion they should be included. --Tucson Indigo (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the discussion really ended a while ago, we need to archive this... but to respond, our criteria cannot be more restrictive than the general guidelines... the general guidlines always hold sway. To respond to your comments, the EPL hall of fame isn't that notable (at least yet.)  Currently anybody who is inducted into it will fulfill the requirements in other ways. As for entertainers, what about GSN's High Stakes Poker---where true amateurs have appeared, but have enough money to ante up the 100 grand?  YEs, being invited to play yourself is probably a valid criteria for inclusion... but that is true for any person not just poker players so it is covered.  Poker players aren't athletes and many people think the athetes section is too liberal.  Creative professionals---again, covered by the qualifications at BIO.Balloonman (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) 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 :) ▪◦▪<b style="background:#4444ee;color:#bbbbff">≡ЅiREX≡</b><b style="background:#4444ee;color:#bbbbff">Talk</b> 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)
 * 1) 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.▪◦▪<b style="background:#4444ee;color:#bbbbff">≡ЅiREX≡</b><b style="background:#4444ee;color:#bbbbff">Talk</b> 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.  &mdash;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)

BIO criteria (P-BIO?) in action
Peter Dalhuijsen created to day seems to me to be an afd candidate. Principal reference is in Dutch. Person has plenty of credibility as a successful player, but a quick-ish look could find no good/reliable English sources to meet WP:BIO criteria, and of course the Dutch win doesn't meet the generally notable criteria here. Unless I missed some sources, perhaps someone else could take a look and do an afd if they agree there are no reliable sources. 2005 (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hendonmob had a small bio on him, says he is also a writer of a online poker school, doesn't quite look to meet WP:BIO kinda grayish unless there is more on him. might be best to contact the editor who wrote his article. I added a Prod to the article.▪◦▪<b style="background:#4444ee;color:#bbbbff">≡ЅiREX≡</b><b style="background:#4444ee;color:#bbbbff">Talk</b> 03:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think he's notable and added a note in our essay about national titles not making a player notable. This includes the US Title.Balloonman (talk) 08:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... don't agree, but my objection against deletion is more generic and not limited to just this article. In fact, I don't understand the whole fuss about notability. Does it cost any trees to include 'less noteable' players in WP? Does our carbon footprint increase when WP extends by a few more pages? Why even try to define noteability criteria? Surely any reader can decide him/herself whether a player is noteable or not. OK, leave my soapbox now... cheers, JocK (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * because if we don't establish and enforce notability guidelines, then Wikipedia will become nothing more than a mess of spam and vanity articles. I'm a solid, winning poker player, and I damn sure am not notable enough to the rest of the world to merit a Wiki article. ♣  ♦  SmartGuy  ♥  ♠ 21:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * nothing more than a mess of vanity articles...? It will be (and is) so much more...! The creation of vanity articles will not cause a deletion of any 'notable' articles. As I indicated in the above, there is no shortage of (virtual) space here. Honestly, I don't see the problem to be solved by defining 'notability'. And then... even if I would be concerned about potential vanity articles, the above definition of 'notable poker players' would be well over the top. Why would I not be allowed to find any info on national champions in WP? To avoid creation of 'vanity articles'? C'mon..! Cheers, JocK (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you need to take your crusade up at WP:N not here. Notability is an accepted and widely used guideline.Balloonman (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The "fuss" is both Wikipedia policy and guidelines. You just can't make articles about the bubblegum on your shoe. 2005 (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

JocK, I understand your Inclusionist philosophy, part of what I like best about Wikipedia isn't that it's a paper encyclopedia, in something like the Encyclopedia Britannica you wouldn't find an article on Freddy Deeb or tens of thousands of other things, As far as poker there is a point at which it must stop to everyone who calls themself a pro on weather or not they should be included, if someone won a couple $200 buy-in, 27 person Sit & Go at a casino were to be included in would flood this encyclopedia with countless bio's. the problem I see lies somewhere in the middle, people the are either slightly over or slightly under what is thought to be notable, for example I find Doug Lee to be notable where others on the project do not, with that at times I'm a Incrementalist, for example all the people from the Poker Hall of Fame that don't have articles that SmartGuy brought up at the top of this page (we really should work on), other times I'm a deletionist although not hardcore, I see no need for every 'I was ITM @ the WSOP and was on tv' Tom, Dick, and Harry, and as at stands now neither does the encyclopedia, per WP:BIO, with that their are some editors that may not see what we know to be notable as notable at all. like Lee Jones (author) see debate, So I understand your attitude but I disagree with you on your opinion of free-for-all Inclusionism. As far as Peter Dalhuijsen if there is something else that you know of him other then his poker record which would meet WP:N, then add the information to his article, if others disagree then in maybe taken up to AfD, however Dalhuijsen may pass WP:BIO on his own in the future someday anyways.▪◦▪ ≡S i R E X≡  Talk 03:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)