Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starla Brodie

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 speedy keep. per SK1 - No valid or even policy-based reason for deletion, Articles are nominated for notability concerns not how much money they earn (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 17:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Starla Brodie

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

Not notable. Absurd. There are poker players who make more than her lifetime earnings in tournaments multiples times per day, 365 days per year. Yet an essay at WikiProjectPoker claims any WSOP side event makes you notable. Sorry, that essay is wrong. She is not notable. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 July 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as the first female WSOP winner (and not of a "side event") and a two-time winner. As for the amount, should we also negate Johnny Moss's victory at the very first Main Event because he only won $30,000? Should five-time WSOP winner Gary Berland be deleted too? His biggest WSOP cash was less than Brodie's: $24,000 to $35,200. You can't apply today's standards to yesterday's players. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everything other than the Main Event is a side event, by definition -- the term used on Wikipedia is 'preliminary event' -- same thing.
WP:OSE is not a valid way to establish notability.
If winning established notability, RS's would have written about it. That they haven't, means that by definition it was not notable.
Any arguments about notability which aren't based on RS's are original research which is not considered or allowed. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No reason offered for deletion. 2005 (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That you think "she is not notable" is not a reason for deletion says everything about your views in this topic area and why all of the votes for keep you are about to offer should be ignored. You have no respect for WP:N. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are flat out making stuff up. Starla Brodie is notable, she has some coverage, for example, so why are you making up that section in quotes? Please don't act like this is some life or death thing that you have to slash through. 2005 (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You said I offered no reason for deletion. Now you are arguing against the reason I gave. I'm confused, did I offer a reason or not? Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per others. Rray (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 15:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No reason offered for deletion. Toffanin (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2015 (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.