| Revision as of 21:14, 1 July 2015 edit2005 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers25,389 edits →Notability Requirement← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:22, 1 July 2015 edit undoHandpolk (talk | contribs)1,588 edits →Notability RequirementNext edit → | ||
| Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
| ::::::::Consensus can change over time. Right now all I see is you -- using original research, misrepresenting essays as "criteria" and using other fear tactics, while making no valid arguments for ]. ] ] 20:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC) | ::::::::Consensus can change over time. Right now all I see is you -- using original research, misrepresenting essays as "criteria" and using other fear tactics, while making no valid arguments for ]. ] ] 20:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::::The Misplaced Pages is not a "right now" thing. Numerous editors have contributed to it and you should respect their work and opinions -- not give in to them, but respect them. As of now, no one agrees with you, so you should stop just doing stuff you want and seek to formulate a _new_ consensus. For example, the current consensus values one-shot accomplishement in winning a bracelet. The BLP1 rule runs counter to that, so one time winners without coverage could be redirected to event pages. However, two time (or more) winners could not be even possible to do that with. Two time or more winners also plainly are not BLP1 by definition. Considering your opinion, my own view would be 1) anybody with two or more reliable source coverage gets an article, 2) sourced multiple winners get an article, 3) one-time winners (or participants) without coverage don't get articles (until they merit it with reliable sources or a second accomplishment). This view seems to be similar to what Clarityfiend stated elsewhere. (Also, please don't just redirect existing articles. That is not the proper way to do things. Better to discuss here, and if you are unsatisfied then, use Afd. ] (]) 21:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC) | :::::::::The Misplaced Pages is not a "right now" thing. Numerous editors have contributed to it and you should respect their work and opinions -- not give in to them, but respect them. As of now, no one agrees with you, so you should stop just doing stuff you want and seek to formulate a _new_ consensus. For example, the current consensus values one-shot accomplishement in winning a bracelet. The BLP1 rule runs counter to that, so one time winners without coverage could be redirected to event pages. However, two time (or more) winners could not be even possible to do that with. Two time or more winners also plainly are not BLP1 by definition. Considering your opinion, my own view would be 1) anybody with two or more reliable source coverage gets an article, 2) sourced multiple winners get an article, 3) one-time winners (or participants) without coverage don't get articles (until they merit it with reliable sources or a second accomplishment). This view seems to be similar to what Clarityfiend stated elsewhere. (Also, please don't just redirect existing articles. That is not the proper way to do things. Better to discuss here, and if you are unsatisfied then, use Afd. ] (]) 21:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::::See ] and the spirit of ] -- which I'd amend to "ignore all essays, original research and fear tactics from editors who think they ] articles or entire topics. ] ] 21:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:22, 1 July 2015
 | Gambling: Poker NA‑class | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
Shortcut
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Request for comment on Biographies of living people
Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:
Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.
The two opposing positions which have the most support is:
- supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
- opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect
Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.
Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue the projects below.
Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Misplaced Pages struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
FLRC
I have nominated List of poker hands for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer • 06:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject X is live!
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
General notability
I think we need to add a new criteria towards players whom we believe have automatic general notability. That would be:
- Any player who has won the Card Player or WSOP Player of the Year award.74.124.47.10 (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Seems good, but I'd also assume such a person would already easily merit an article due to coverage in independent sources. 2005 (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Notability Requirement
I propose we ignore tournament results in establishing notability and focus on RS's instead. If the tournament they won was notable enough, it will be covered by RS's. If it wasn't, then we aren't including people who don't deserve an article.
I have nominated the following for deletion as examples of the current flawed requirements: Bob Ciaffone, Gene Fisher and Rodney H. Pardey.
The articles for people who won minor side events at the WSOP many years ago tend to be really bad, with the only thing sourced being available on Hendon Mob and everything else being unsourced peacock fluff. Articles like that do not improve the encyclopedia, they make it worse. It is noted on the project page we have these articles for people who want to see what else they have won. There are tons of other places they can get that information and in a better format, that doesn't invite people adding peacock fluff. All we are doing is repeating verbatim with those sources say, anyway.
More examples from https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:World_Series_of_Poker_bracelet_winners.
- Dave Alizadeth won $20,000 in the casino employees event in 2000 and he is notable?
- Howard Andrew won $50,000 total in two events in the 1970's and he is notable?
- Sam Angel won $49,000 total in two events in the 1970's and he is notable?
That's just the A's.
Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- You appear to be not appreciating two key things: first, no WSOP tournament before 1990 was a "minor" side event. It was the highest achievement possible for that game in the world at the time. For example, the first few WSOP main events had less than 20 people. But they were still recognized as the greatest achievement in the poker world. (Less than a dozen horses typically run in the Belmont Stakes; it's still pretty great to win.) And events in the first few Olympics often only had a small number of participants. The winners are still notable as Olympic champions. Additionally, $100,000 in the 1970s is the equivalent of somewhere in the half million dollar ballpark now. Secondly, there was no Internet when people won bracelets in the 1970s and 1980s. There is nothing to link, hardly any ancient newspapers are online. Whatever criteria we have for people today should not be as stringent as for people forty years ago. All these people who won a few decades ago are listed in innumerable publications as WSOP winners, which is not classic coverage, but it is coverage of these people as members of a group. The winner of a WSOP bracelet in 1980 is certainly more encyclopedic than somebody who played baseball for a few weeks in 1957, but other Wikiprojects seek to be exhaustive rather than restrictive. Any poker player who has not won a WSOP bracelet needs the normal independent coverage in reliable sources to merit an article, but there is no harm at all in tending to be exhaustive when it comes to WSOP winners -- especially those who have won more than once like Pardey, Andrew and Fisher. This puts them above mere "single event" notability. The guide should be what is most helpful to users, which generally is to favor more encyclopedic information, not less. 2005 (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that pre-internet sources will be tougher to come by. That may be a reason to lower the threshold but not to eliminate it. However I disagree on how important it was to win a WSOP bracelet before 1990. Nobody cared about poker in those days. The fields were tiny. The prize pools were tiny. The press didn't care. Outside of the Main Event and the (very small) poker world, nobody cared. Comparing it to the Olympics or Belmont Stakes is not accurate, as those are invite only events. Anybody could have played these events, yet only a few people did because poker was a very fringe endeavor back then. If you want a comparison, compare it to backgammon. Surely you wouldn't argue that anybody who ever won a side-event at the World Backgammon Championships would qualify for an article? Maybe the World Champion each year but nothing beyond that. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Backgammon is one game. The World Series of Poker in the earlier years mostly featured one event in each discipline. So by the logic of what you said, the winner of the seven card stud event would merit inclusion the same way backgammon would. See 1975 World Series of Poker as an example. No duplicates at all. "Poker" is a family of games, some of which are totally different than each other. As for "nobody cared", that certainly isn't true. Millions of people played poker for decades. The main reason for the small fields was the huge entry fees... Joe Kitchen Table Player wasn't going to just come up with $1000 to play the seven card stud event against the best players. It actually is not that unsimilar to the early Olympics, where most anyone could enter, and athletes paid their own way overseas to wherever they were being held. More to the point, there is no strong reason to not include articles on these older winners, especially ones who won multiple events. Suppose someone wants to know who won these events, and how some older player did in his career? There is no reason for us not to have this encyclopedic information available. One older player was a guy named Hal Fowler. Granted his one win was the main event in 1979, but he is interesting precisely because he was almost totally anonymous then and now. It would be non-user friendly to not have an article on him even though the sources on him are minimal compared to what we would have today. Basically, the Misplaced Pages isn't much needed for anything that happens today. But it should do its best with bringing together what information is available about pre-Internet events. I'd agree the Dave Alizadeth article doesn't exactly enrich civilization, but both Andrew and Angel are multiple winners and the articles offer some interesting information. Also Andrew's article does list multiple reliable sources so I don't think there is any problem there in any case. 2005 (talk) 05:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- There is a very good reason not to have them, they are not notable. Your original research about how important tiny WSOP side events were in the 1970's and 80's doesn't change that. Another good reason is that most of these articles simply repeat information on a bunch of other sites (1 2 3) about which event they won and how much they won. Misplaced Pages is adding precisely nothing of value to the World by copying that information here -- and providing a place for them and their friends, family and fans to add a bunch of unsourced peacock statements about them. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 02:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages copies stuff. That is what it exists for. It copies stuff, ideally from many places, and organizes it. The criteria for these articles is clear, win an event, so no random vanity articles can be created. You haven't made any case for why you find these articles written by multiple contributors to be a negative for the encyclopedia. Try and consider what is best for users. These articles are accurate and informative. Some are stubs, but that is reason to seek out more sources for them, not delete them. 2005 (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- I've just noticed 'the criteria' you speak of is nothing more than an essay. I disagree with that essay and will be ignoring it. I don't think winning a WSOP side-event automatically makes one notable. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- It's the result of several long discussions both within the Project and the encyclopedia as a whole. It's a consensus of prior discussions debated by many people, so ignoring it is ignoring the consensus and views of many other editors. Please respect other editors' work and views. 2005 (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Consensus can change over time. Right now all I see is you -- using original research, misrepresenting essays as "criteria" and using other fear tactics, while making no valid arguments for WP:N. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- The Misplaced Pages is not a "right now" thing. Numerous editors have contributed to it and you should respect their work and opinions -- not give in to them, but respect them. As of now, no one agrees with you, so you should stop just doing stuff you want and seek to formulate a _new_ consensus. For example, the current consensus values one-shot accomplishement in winning a bracelet. The BLP1 rule runs counter to that, so one time winners without coverage could be redirected to event pages. However, two time (or more) winners could not be even possible to do that with. Two time or more winners also plainly are not BLP1 by definition. Considering your opinion, my own view would be 1) anybody with two or more reliable source coverage gets an article, 2) sourced multiple winners get an article, 3) one-time winners (or participants) without coverage don't get articles (until they merit it with reliable sources or a second accomplishment). This view seems to be similar to what Clarityfiend stated elsewhere. (Also, please don't just redirect existing articles. That is not the proper way to do things. Better to discuss here, and if you are unsatisfied then, use Afd. 2005 (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Consensus can change over time. Right now all I see is you -- using original research, misrepresenting essays as "criteria" and using other fear tactics, while making no valid arguments for WP:N. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's the result of several long discussions both within the Project and the encyclopedia as a whole. It's a consensus of prior discussions debated by many people, so ignoring it is ignoring the consensus and views of many other editors. Please respect other editors' work and views. 2005 (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- I've just noticed 'the criteria' you speak of is nothing more than an essay. I disagree with that essay and will be ignoring it. I don't think winning a WSOP side-event automatically makes one notable. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages copies stuff. That is what it exists for. It copies stuff, ideally from many places, and organizes it. The criteria for these articles is clear, win an event, so no random vanity articles can be created. You haven't made any case for why you find these articles written by multiple contributors to be a negative for the encyclopedia. Try and consider what is best for users. These articles are accurate and informative. Some are stubs, but that is reason to seek out more sources for them, not delete them. 2005 (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- There is a very good reason not to have them, they are not notable. Your original research about how important tiny WSOP side events were in the 1970's and 80's doesn't change that. Another good reason is that most of these articles simply repeat information on a bunch of other sites (1 2 3) about which event they won and how much they won. Misplaced Pages is adding precisely nothing of value to the World by copying that information here -- and providing a place for them and their friends, family and fans to add a bunch of unsourced peacock statements about them. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 02:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Backgammon is one game. The World Series of Poker in the earlier years mostly featured one event in each discipline. So by the logic of what you said, the winner of the seven card stud event would merit inclusion the same way backgammon would. See 1975 World Series of Poker as an example. No duplicates at all. "Poker" is a family of games, some of which are totally different than each other. As for "nobody cared", that certainly isn't true. Millions of people played poker for decades. The main reason for the small fields was the huge entry fees... Joe Kitchen Table Player wasn't going to just come up with $1000 to play the seven card stud event against the best players. It actually is not that unsimilar to the early Olympics, where most anyone could enter, and athletes paid their own way overseas to wherever they were being held. More to the point, there is no strong reason to not include articles on these older winners, especially ones who won multiple events. Suppose someone wants to know who won these events, and how some older player did in his career? There is no reason for us not to have this encyclopedic information available. One older player was a guy named Hal Fowler. Granted his one win was the main event in 1979, but he is interesting precisely because he was almost totally anonymous then and now. It would be non-user friendly to not have an article on him even though the sources on him are minimal compared to what we would have today. Basically, the Misplaced Pages isn't much needed for anything that happens today. But it should do its best with bringing together what information is available about pre-Internet events. I'd agree the Dave Alizadeth article doesn't exactly enrich civilization, but both Andrew and Angel are multiple winners and the articles offer some interesting information. Also Andrew's article does list multiple reliable sources so I don't think there is any problem there in any case. 2005 (talk) 05:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that pre-internet sources will be tougher to come by. That may be a reason to lower the threshold but not to eliminate it. However I disagree on how important it was to win a WSOP bracelet before 1990. Nobody cared about poker in those days. The fields were tiny. The prize pools were tiny. The press didn't care. Outside of the Main Event and the (very small) poker world, nobody cared. Comparing it to the Olympics or Belmont Stakes is not accurate, as those are invite only events. Anybody could have played these events, yet only a few people did because poker was a very fringe endeavor back then. If you want a comparison, compare it to backgammon. Surely you wouldn't argue that anybody who ever won a side-event at the World Backgammon Championships would qualify for an article? Maybe the World Champion each year but nothing beyond that. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)