Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erin Ness (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Ness[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Placing 207th in one tournament is a laughable reason to suggest someone is notable. Clear delete. DegenFarang (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person is notable. The article needs to be expanded, and reliable sources need to be included, but deletion is uncalled for. Rray (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable how? DegenFarang (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see 96 results in a Google News search and 36,000+ results in a general Google search. It's hard to imagine that none of those are reliable sources that could be used to expand the article. Rray (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Poorya Nazari has 68 Google News results and 48,000 Google results. Many of them reliable sources. His fame however derives from one single event, and such people are not notable enough for an article. Erin Ness is similarly famous from just one event - one that she didn't even come close to winning. She is thus, not notable. See WP:BLP1E DegenFarang (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POKER has been notified of this discussion

Delete unless somebody wants to salvage this article and show why she is notable. While WP:BLP1E is, IMHO, a questionable criterion when dealing with some subects (such as poker players where people may be looking them up to see what else they've done) in this case I think it is a valid criteria. Unless otherwise demonstrated, her apparent claim to notability is that she was the 3rd to last woman standing at the main even finishing in 207th place?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As noted below, the nominator removed references from the article before nomination. They are back in now. 2005 (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator removed references before nomination. I restored the Sporting News and NorthJersey/Record references and made them inline, as well as adding Cardplayer. 2005 (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (unless WP:HOTTIE is a policy now). Her cash in the WSOP means she got her entry fee back, and her lifetime winnings of 20K are laughably small. ~~She's a WP:BLP1E photogenic flash in the pan.~~ Weak keep. She's apparently had a Maxim article and is a character in one of the World Championship Poker video games. That plus the other stuff changes my vote. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Peacock terms in the nomination + a review of the article history = cannot support deletion. Current version provides foundation for an article meeting WP's requirements. Townlake (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - what's with all these nuisance poker nominations Degen? It's really poor form (and a total waste of peoples time) to delete references from an article and then nominate it for deletion based on it failing notability... Hazir (talk) 07:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not find these people to be notable. I will continue to nominate articles for deletion about people who are not notable. All this person has achieved is placing 207th in one poker tournament, and the fame that came along with that. Being a woman she got more coverage in RS's and PokerStars picked her up, she was invited to be on TV etc - but all she did was place 207th in a poker tournament. To me, that is not notable. If she is notable then we should include all 206 people who finished ahead of her in the tournament. The fact that most of them were men and thus got less press coverage does not factor into their notability in my view. They are more notable than her because they all achieved more. Not including indirectly because they are men is sexist. DegenFarang (talk) 10:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep. You wouldn't know it from the article, but she appears to be notable. Not for her ability or success at poker, but more the fact that she is being used for marketing and so on. The article needs a lot of work... Wikipeterproject (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.