Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker/Archive 4

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Some wiktionary help 

message: should i start a wikipedia article about it? we already have one about the WCOOP.Chiyocide 07:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Full Tilt Online Poker Series (FTOPS) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Erin Ness]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Mute point now for Gus "the bubbleboy" Hansen!Balloonman 05:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 06:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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 ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 20:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WSOPE 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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#GUIDE, 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 ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 07:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  new source of poker info 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  Proposed deletions ([[WP:PROD]]) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pamela Brunson 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Help needed in Wiktionary 

message: 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..▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 18:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[PokerTracker]] 

message: Asia Pacific Poker Tour, is this note worthy? -▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: It merits an article, but not a listing in the major tournament template. (Yet anyway.) 2005 08:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AgreedBalloonman 16:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone heard of this before 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Infobox Template 

message: 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)
replies: text: What a ridiculous and absurd nomination. Rray 04:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn... the nom snowballed before I could participate in it!  What a frivolous nomination.Balloonman 06:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: *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)

text: *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)
thread_title: Lee Jones

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Attempt to Document the Absolute Poker Cheating Scandal

message: PokerPlayer magazine has been nominated for deletion. Balloonman 07:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: balloonman - I edited your comments to fix some broken links - link to the AFD did not work. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 07:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.  ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 07:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The link revisions should be discused at WT:WPSPAM, as there ia significant issue with the publisher spamming them. see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.pokerplayermagazine.co.uk--Hu12 08:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 09:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[PokerPlayer magazine]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 01:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: edit conflicted... I didnt know what it mean eitherBalloonman (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm looks like we have secret poker cabal!!! ;-) ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 01:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: I think this is probably the best solution. --Crazy4metallica (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll work on it, and let everyone preview the change before adding it.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 03:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing part of infobox 

message: Just to let you all know, the Wikipedia: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)
thread_title:  Poker AFD 

message: 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)
thread_title: Back from Wiki hell

message: #Support Balloonman (talk) 06:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Support'''

message: #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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: '''Neutral'''

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 03:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: BIO criteria (P-BIO?) in action