Wikipedia talk:Notability (poker players)

Proposed Notability Criteria

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

Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marking as rejected

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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