Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madeleine Rowan (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 Delete, cuz we know when to fold 'em. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madeleine Rowan (2nd nomination)

Completely non-notable poker player that seems to have been kept the first time around due to only focussing on whether its existance was a conflict of interest rather than the merits of the article itself. No achievments and only "notable" for being the youngest female in the WSOP ME in 2006 (which was beaten in 2007, and arguably is even further surpassed by the far more notable and successful Annette Obrestad.) Absolutely nothing in the article supports this article being kept. –– Lid^(Talk) 14:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD has been announced to Wikiproject Poker

Delete does not meet notability by a mile.Balloonman (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable coverage to establish notability... links in article show one Post story where she is not the focus, one cardplayer story where she is not the focus, and one blog article where she is. Also, the primary notability assertion (youngest female ever to play) is not cited, and that is probably because the assertion can not be proved. 2005 (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being the youngest female player to make it to the WSOP main event should satisfy notability. (Wasn't well sourced, I found one for that piece of information here.) JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Main Event is not a sports final that one gets into from consistantly good performance, it's an open event and anyone with $10000 can enter. Being the youngest to afford the buy in is not notable, and even more so when it's both unsourced and surpassed. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed, her being the youngest simply means she had money to spend at a younger age than most. Being the youngest to make the final table or win an event---now that is saying something. Being the youngest to have 10K to spend on a tournament... nada.Balloonman (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and convert to inline citations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds? She has never cashed in a poker tournament, let alone won one. There is nothing in this to justify keeping it. –– Lid^(Talk) 06:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, no notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources don't come close to meeting the notability guidelines. RMHED (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2008 (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.