 | November Nine received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 | A fact from November Nine appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 August 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fix
editThe 2009 section should be fixed so the player names don't redirect themselves back to the article, as it does with every name except Ivey and Shulman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.55.148 (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is that in order to make the table sortable, it links to the subjects article. Most of these players are not independently notable enough for an article... and will remain so once the WSOP is complete. They are notable enough that the poker project decided to create redirects for them. So we are caught in a catch 22. Make the table sortable or have circular redirects?---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Blind Levels
editIt would be helpful to understand the players' positions if we knew what the beginning blind levels will be when play resumes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
2010 November Nine
editNotes on a couple pros in the 2010 Nov Nine.
Joseph "subiime" Cheong born Saguhyon Cheong $ 74,779 live over $1 million online
- online
- PS
- http://www.bluffmagazine.com/thepokerdb/subiime/PokerStars/2001539/player-profile.asp
- FullTilt
- http://www.bluffmagazine.com/thepokerdb/subiime/FullTiltPoker/214205/player-profile.asp?defbp=1
- http://www.pocketfives.com/profiles/subiime/
- http://www.pokernewsdaily.com/joseph-cheong-subiime-poker-player-profile-13311/
John "$JMONEY$" Racener "$30K" on PokerStars "POCKET FIVE" on Fulltilt
live earning, - $ 1,180,506
- http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=77583
- online
- http://www.pokernewsdaily.com/john-racener-jmoney-poker-player-profile-13298/
- http://www.pocketfives.com/profiles/$jmoney$/
There is also some guy named the grender, grander, girner something like that. Racener's favorite poker player!, the irony! ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 15:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm fairly sure it's Girner[citation needed]. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- ^can you cite that please, SIR! ;), if he were to win, his live tournment winnings would be $17,746,232, that would be $4,563,924 above current leader Phil Ivey who is listed at $13,182,308 in the all time money list! crazy! ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 17:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- I was SO tempted to edit Mizrachi's nickname to "Girner" in his article! Anyways, a second-place finish would also see him surpass Ivey in the All-Time Money list! That fact and the excitement of the Player of the Year results are what's carrying the November Nine this year. I was sweating him just watching the updates! It all does feel quite a bit like last year; a well-known player amongst relative/absolute unknowns currently 7th in chips and with the potential to make INCREDIBLE Poker history... Damn, it's good to be a poker fan! JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- ^can you cite that please, SIR! ;), if he were to win, his live tournment winnings would be $17,746,232, that would be $4,563,924 above current leader Phil Ivey who is listed at $13,182,308 in the all time money list! crazy! ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 17:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I've set up the links redirecting pages for all the players besides Mizrachi to redirect to November Nine#2010. In line with Wikipedia:BLP1E we shouldn't make articles about these people unless they would merit an article (or at least very close) without this single event, where the event is the notable thing. Hopefully we won't get spammers trying to set up articles to promote their websites this year as in the past. 2005 (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm happy to help out this year, although I've little idea of how to monitor new articles or the procedure for recommending deletion. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- For the time being I have no problem with this, but I fully suspect that by the time November rolls around, these players will meet the basic requirements for inclusion. There is going to be so much written about each of them over the next few months that it won't be funny. Plus, as I've argued before, this is clearly a case of competing at the highest level of the sport and people may want to know if these people have accomplished anything before. EG which players have cashed previously? Have any won/placed in the WPT/EPT/etc. BLP1E, IMO, does not apply.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- The best guide is to look at previous years. Several of those past players have done nothing at all that approaches what the Wikipedia calls "notable", and it follows right along from the guideline that we don't have articles about them. Some that we do have articles for haven't been notable for anything since. Besides Mizrachi, John Racener for one has notable poker accomplishments, but we should let previous years be our guide - for some of these people, this will be it, and it is not they that are notable but the event. But in any case, when articles are made, they should not be spammy and merely saying "he is part of the Novemebr Nine." 2005 (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- No the best guide isn't "that's the way its always been done." But I do agree... if all that is said is that they are part of the November 9, then they don't deserve an article. But if there is substantial coverage then yes, they may be deserving of one. Hell, using the same standard that you've argued in AfD's in the past, there is likely to be more than enough coverage on these people to merit articles. (Not today, but when the coverage starts hitting the media.) These players are going to be more notable than many of the players for whom we already have articles. It depends on coverage, but the fact that their principle claim to fame will be for making the Nov 9 isn't grounds for not having an article. People are going to look these players up explicitly because they want to know "Who is that person? Have they won anything? Have they ever cashed in anything? Are they a pro or amateur? Where are they from? Are they an accountant or lumberjack?" There will be more interest in them, hell there will be more interest in them than many of the marginal players who get a modicum of coverage because they won some online tournament.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't say "that's the way its always been done" that doesn't have anything to do with the issue. The issue is looking back at some of the flimsy articles that were written. The threshold for people articles is really low. Just have some reliable source coverage about the person. That comes up in Afd's all the time. At the same time, articles that say "John Doe, Mary Roe and Edward Poe are members of the November Nine" is saying something about the event, not the people, whose names are in fact essentially random. 2005 (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- No the best guide isn't "that's the way its always been done." But I do agree... if all that is said is that they are part of the November 9, then they don't deserve an article. But if there is substantial coverage then yes, they may be deserving of one. Hell, using the same standard that you've argued in AfD's in the past, there is likely to be more than enough coverage on these people to merit articles. (Not today, but when the coverage starts hitting the media.) These players are going to be more notable than many of the players for whom we already have articles. It depends on coverage, but the fact that their principle claim to fame will be for making the Nov 9 isn't grounds for not having an article. People are going to look these players up explicitly because they want to know "Who is that person? Have they won anything? Have they ever cashed in anything? Are they a pro or amateur? Where are they from? Are they an accountant or lumberjack?" There will be more interest in them, hell there will be more interest in them than many of the marginal players who get a modicum of coverage because they won some online tournament.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- The best guide is to look at previous years. Several of those past players have done nothing at all that approaches what the Wikipedia calls "notable", and it follows right along from the guideline that we don't have articles about them. Some that we do have articles for haven't been notable for anything since. Besides Mizrachi, John Racener for one has notable poker accomplishments, but we should let previous years be our guide - for some of these people, this will be it, and it is not they that are notable but the event. But in any case, when articles are made, they should not be spammy and merely saying "he is part of the Novemebr Nine." 2005 (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Ages
editDoes anybody know if any of this years November 9 are threats to breaking the age barrier again?---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Nobody's young enough to break it this year. The last person younger than Cada was went out when around 70 players were left, I believe. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- all ages are listed here [1] youngest player this year is 22.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 22:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)