Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Viriyayuthakorn

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Viriyayuthakorn

Jason Viriyayuthakorn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails WP:BIO, the article is about a poker player with no significance tournament results, has only one World Series of Poker money finish, 9th in the 2004 WSOP $1,500 No-Limit Hold'em ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 17:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Article is also an orphan and has no references other than the Hendon Mob player database. --kingboyk (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - poker players have been treated as athletes previously for purposes of WP:BIO and this guy appears to qualify as a competitor who has "played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis." While his TV time has been negligible he's been playing at a relatively high level for several years, including winning an event ata major tournament series as far back as 2001. Otto4711 (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Viriy weak keep, just barely on the basis of the tournament win Otto4711 found. Delete. Small 1st prize indicates that the field in his one win wasn't that large. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• even weaker keep See comment below /because I don't personally think of poker as sport and I hate when ESPN puts poker games on television. But I digress, the link found by Otto4711 shows him victorious as a pro, which helps establish his notability. Not that anyone is going to know how to spell Viriyayuthakorn for a search. Is "Jason V" a redirect? ... Oh! I just checked! It is! It is! Amazing.... Keeper | 76 22:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly poker players are not athletes and never have been treated as such here, for obvious reasons: "played in..." is a totally ludicrous criteria as anyone can enter a WSOP event. We didn't make thousands of stubs for everyone who entered the WSOP main event last year! So the fact he has played means nothing. His one victory and dozen middling finishes do get him close to notability, but his simply fails WP:BIO. There are not multiple published works dedicated to him. There appears to be one write-up on Pokerpages regarding his 2001 win. That just isn't enough to merit an article at this point -- though he certainly could merit one in the future. 2005 (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone is suggesting that every person who played in the main event warrants a stub article. But, not to pull a WP:WAX, if a football player with one pro game under his belt is considered notable then a professional poker player (for whom the "athlete" section of WP:BIO is the closest we have to a formalized standard) who's been playing at top levels for several years probably ought to be considered notable as well. Otto4711 (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• You did just suggest that. The criteria in WP:BIO for the athletes plainly is not relevant here. Entering a poker tournament is in no way similar to playing even one down in a pro football game. A fan can't just come down from the stands an play football, but anybody can enter an event. So simply playing is no criteria at all. Athletes does not apply. The "Entertainers" section of BIO is better, though still flawed... "With significant roles... Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions... Has a large fan base." But still that isn't appropriate since "fans" don't matter in poker, and neither does innovation particularly. The two criteria that primarily matter are success/winning/make money, and non-trivial focus of third party media. This is why some less successful players who get lots of media coverage will merit an article sometimes when anonymous/plodder type folks who make money sometimes won't. In this case, he has enough success to clearly not be a dilettante, but he simply doesn't have third party media coverage. Thus the operative part of WP:BIO is very clear: "The person must have been the subject of published secondary source material... 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." This person has much trivial coverage (statistic sites), but he has not been the subject of MULTIPLE published material. He has ONE significant article that focuses largely on him (but even that is covering an event he won, rather than a profile of him). It seems to me that while he does fall just a bit short of BIO, he clearly does fall short (until someone can find at least two significant published things about him). 2005 (talk) 06:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well, no, I didn't actually suggest starting several thousand stubs, but I guess if it makes you feel better to say I did I really don't care enough about this guy to keep correcting you. Otto4711 (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Never mind theoretical notability... where's the reliable sources? --kingboyk (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I did start a discussion at the Wikipedia Poker project about this, with aim to codify poker bios a bit better since they aren't covered more spcifically in WP:BIO, even though the general criteria does cover the situation pretty well. 2005 (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete His victory isn't at a major poker tournament. Binions World Poker Open is simply a $1000 buy in--not a major event (ala those events identified by the project at Template:Major Poker Tournaments.) I would compare this guy not to a professional athlete, but rather to a non-notable actor who had a decent role in a non-notable movie.Balloonman (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I certainly view the WPO win as a "major tournament". That template is a poor one, as the this WPO event is about ten times more "major" than the Ultimate Poker Challenge, which has no business on a "major" list. It is the same status as the US Poker Championship, and actually probably more "major" than that. Still, a major tournament win alone doesn't merit an article, or put another way, we certainly should not make an article for every Ultimate Poker Challenge winner. 2005 (talk) 10:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • You're right, I haven't really looked at that template that closely, but UPC definately isnt a major tournament. A major tournament, IMHO, by definition is one where the major poker superstars might ask, "Are you going to XXX." If the tournament is a weekly event or some such, then it isn't a major tournament. It is a reoccuring tournament.Balloonman (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I know this doesn't make us the arbitors of poker nobility, but 2005, Sirex98 and I are the three most active voices at the Wikiproject Poker... and all three of us fail to see this guy as notable.Balloonman (talk) 08:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment and change position. You're right. Being an active voice anywhere on WP does not make you an arbitor of nobility, or notability, or knowability. Maybe you are "active" there to clean it out with loads of AfD nominations. (I know that isn't true though, I checked). Needless to say, you discussion here has swayed me from a teetering weak keep to Delete., especially the case made by 2005. Happy editing, (and for you Americans, you know who you are, Happy Thanksgiving. Keeper | 76 15:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we do a pretty good job of voting what we believe to be notable---which includes arguing for the inclusion of many articles brought to AFD and the deletion of some articles brought to AFD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balloonman (talk • contribs) 16:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.