Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandi Hawbaker

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 No consensus, default to Keep as not a BLP; I managed to find a few brief non-poker references whilst looking at this (i.e. [1]) which leads me to suggest that, although on the borderline of notability, this one just scrapes in. YMMV, of course. Black Kite 22:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brandi Hawbaker

Brandi Hawbaker (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Overall fails WP:N as her "notability" derived from her infamy due to several controversial events involving poker professionals (i.e. (BLP REMOVED) sexually assaulting her, scamming Gavin Griffin, getting paid by Full Tilt Poker for a picture of their logo over one of her breasts, posting nude pictures of herself online). Considering Brandi committed suicide there is no chance of notability increasing beyond these drama-fodder events that have largely played out on internet forums. –– Lid^(Talk) 08:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, yet another crime/gossip article on a non-notable person. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Multiple reliable sources included in the article indicate notability. Rray (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • What reliable sources? A blog, a "mob poker database", and cardplayer.com? KleenupKrew (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, those are the reliable sources I was referring to. CardPlayer is the oldest and most respected magazine in the poker field, the Hendon Mob website is a well-respected source for poker information that is used in hundreds of poker articles, and the blog is a news feed from Bodog, a large corporation. (i.e. It's not just some personal blog.) Your lack of familiarity with those sources does not equate to them not being reliable sources. Rray (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
      • None of those sources is notable enough to establish the basis for an article in an encyclopedia. Searches on "Brandi Hawbaker site:cnn.com", "Brandi Hawbaker site:nytimes.com", "Brandi Hawbaker site:washingtonpost.com" all come up with 0 hits. A general Google search on Brandi Hawbaker has the top two hits on YouTube and the next two on Blogspot, almost all other hits on poker gossip forums and blogs, and nothing that I can see from the mainstream media, a sure sign of being Not Notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I appreciate the point you're making, but I think the consensus about what constitutes notability differs somewhat from the rather strict interpretation you've provided with your examples. (I'd say that what comes up first in Google in a search has little relevance to a subject's notability, for example. A lack of coverage in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and CNN doesn't disqualify someone from being notable in their field either.) And one of the principles of Wikipedia is that we combine a traditional encyclopedia with the concept of specialized encyclopedias; it would be difficult to build a specialized poker encyclopedia without considering Cardplayer, for example, to be a reliable source. Rray (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
        • The sources are clearly reliable. CNN isn't an issue here, or with most niche-famous people. 2005 (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
          • The sources are reliable, but they do not illustrate notability. Nearly every poker player who has ever cashed in a live poker tournament has a page on hendonmob, the cardplayer article refers to her as a cult figure on online poker forums which is not indicative of notability either, and the third (written during her life) simply states she is a controversial figure and that the only source for the controversies are her own word. Yes, these are standard cites for poker articles, but that's because nearly every other poker article is about the persons notable contributions and accomplishments in poker, this articles notability derives from a girl who happened to be a poker player that caused drama. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Cardplayer.com is a pretty solid source; the other two aren't particularly useful for establishing notability. However, this woman's antics were widely noticed in the poker world, so that pushes it over the bar for me. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Very Weak Keep I am on the fence on this one and could go either way, but I lean towards "keep" because the subject is noted in secondary sources relevant to the subject matter. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keepbecause it is not only the person, but also the reaseon for her death, which is kind of important. I guess it is a wake-up call for many to pay attention to mental illnesses. I plead strongly to keep it.(talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep. If she had not committed suicide it would probably be a delete, but she clearly meets the WP:V and WP:N. The article has three reliable sources, with one unquestionable. Additionally nominator incorrectly posits that "infamy" is not notability. This is false. Policy has nothing against Paris Hilton-like infamy. Silly, weird, crazy or eccentric drama-magnets can be notable by the same criteria as more sensible people. Finally, there is no doubt she is notable in the more general sense -- there are thousands of non-relaible mentions, and forum threads concerning her have hundreds of thousands of page views, as well as being a very popular google search term. 2005 (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • To me (and the way I believe WP:N is meant to relate to) this all adds up to something that should be on encyclopedia dramatica, not wikipedia. Do I doubt the reliability of the sources? No, but just because something is verifiable, or even true, does not make it notable. –– Lid^(Talk) 22:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The operative guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (people), which makes clear that "dramatica" is perfectly acceptable: "significant, interesting, or unusual enough..." Unuusual certainly covers this person, and also obviously huge numbers of people find the events "interesting", even if some of us don't. She has been "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Not everyone peculiar deserves an article, but if a person achieves near Paris-like levels of independent notice, then dramatica can merit an article. One other comment, Lid, for WP:BLP reasons I'd suggest you remove the name before "sexually" in your original nomination and say "someone". 2005 (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Except it goes onto include this section "Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." –– Lid^(Talk) 22:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
        • And the article does exactly that. It doesn't go into the various weirdness. It says though she committed suicide, which a reliable source quotes the Coroner's office to confirm. 2005 (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
          • And the article does not seem to include any real notability outside that fact. Yes she committed suicide, but committing suicide does not make her notable when she was unnotable for the same acts while still alive. –– Lid^(Talk) 23:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
            • She meets the guideline. I'd agree that the guideline could be tougher, and that thousands of relatively trivia bio articles really should be deleted from the encyclopedia, but that is a discussion for the guideline page. But then also, perhaps a person suffering from mental illness may not have deserved an article when alive, but suicide is a significant development which does impact here. The phenomenon of weird behavior - extremely nasty societal over-reaction - suicide... there is a whole story here, not isolated parts. 2005 (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
              • The whole story doesn't really add up either. Cutting out the poker association, which did not make her notable while alive, the article becomes "Mentally ill girl commits suicide after being taunted on the internet". I do not think an article of that description really has a place here. Yes, I know I am seemingly being contrary to everyone else here in this discussion so far but I am not trying to overturn the notability guidelines - it's a controversial deletion and such controversial discussions are going to end up having arguments from both sides interpretting their side of the debate. –– Lid^(Talk) 23:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per nominator. I know it sounds odd, but the nominator has just given tons of information about the subject, all of which is verifiable in reliable sources. All of that suggests, to the contrary, that she is quite notable. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I have to admit, out of all the possible keep points I expected to occur during this afd, this wasn't one of them. –– Lid^(Talk) 23:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, seems to just barely meet WP:Notability (people). Lots of google hits too. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete per SmartGuy - Very borderline Notability that just falls under (removed previous comments)▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 22:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete and weak mainly because it's just my opinion that Brandi is nothing more than gossip fodder for an audience limited to participants in a couple of popular online poker forums. Based on wiki's own guidelines - small amount of coverage in Cardplayer, etc. - meh, it's REALLLLY borderline. Have any of the accusations that she made against various poker pros every been validated by sources other than poketfives, twoplustwo, or random poker blogs? If not, then I say nuke it. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• KEEP. It's information. There is no such thing as bad information, it's just some is better than others —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.154.42 (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

that's about the weakest argument possible. Wikipedia has notability guidelines specifically so that we can avoid becoming a collection of random fringe articles. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• delete. Notability 'within the poker community' is quite irrelevant as is mostly not WP:RS and/or not mainstream publications. I thought she might pass per google news hits which are reliable, such as the Guardian, but that only has 2 sentences about her, and the rest of the 9 articles about her are passing mentions. Having said that, if this article survives, we owe it to her memory and family for the article to mention more about whatever accomplishments she had, and not only her health problems and death as at present. Merkin's mum 16:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per WP:N as 'significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.' Weak because her notability comes from the controversy she caused in the poker world, and from the unfortunate manner of her death; she was not a professional poker player. A Sheep (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Bbut the article as I read it earlier this afternoon didn't mention any of the controversy, as I recall. If we don't include it, it's pretty unencyclopedic/uninformative. I still wouldn't know what it was, apart from what's mentioned in the nomination at the top of this page. The article just said she was ill and killed herself...oh and she used to go on some internet forums:) Merkin's mum 19:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment that is because most of the controversy surrounding her "eccentric behavior" stems from postings on poker forums twoplustwo.com and pocketfives.com. Some of the gossipy issues were confirmed or substantiated by others involved, other issues were not. Examples that I remember:

• she accused Tom Franklin of stealing her money, touching her innapropriately, cheating on his wife, expecting sex in exchange for poker coaching/mentoring, etc.
• she accused other well-known poker players of cheating her/stealing/all manner of other stuff
• one pro accused her of emptying out his PokerStars account of some $30k
• some other guy accused her of moving in with him and then trashing his place/stealing all of his valuables/etc
• and so on and so on

of course, to my knowledge, none of this was ever reported outside of twoplustwo, pocketfives, or Internet blogs, which are dubious sources of information at best. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I think the way Wikipedia asks for notability in regards to Poker players is skewed heavily towards people who play in tournaments, mainly the large EPT/WPT/WSOP "festivals." No one gets a Wikipedia article for winning one of the minor tournaments that occur during these festivals (unless its for a substantive amount). So why should someone whose best cash was for $20,000 and highest placement relative to the field was 55th out of 1500+ in a $2000 buyin event? We are attributing her relevance on Wikipedia to her being a poker player and her tournament results do not really qualify her as a notable poker player. Strongsauce (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on her poker stats alone this article would be grounds for speedy delete (CSD A7), But in fairness I don't think it was suggested by the people who wish to keep this article that she was ever a notable poker player, clearly she was not, but rather the her bio meets WP:N by way of being a minor celebrity, as it is now somewhat borderline Celeb/News figure at best, but not quite enough to keep.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 04:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I found the article interesting and informative. I think I would still find it so 20 years from now. So it's not just news, it has encyclopedic value. I think it ought to be expanded with more information, if more information is available. Jlawniczak (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:INTERESTING. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • WP:VAGUEWAVE. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Touché - what I meant was just because it is interesting does not make it encyclopedic. The other part of the keep, the addition of new information, I have addressed above as the person involved is dead so there is pretty much nothing else to be gleamed on the person. –– Lid^(Talk) 08:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
        • That's quite a huge assumption, especially in an unnatural death. There is a very good chance more coverage will be forthcoming. And of course it is no argument for a deletion. 2005 (talk) 08:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
          • That is quite speculative, what evidence is there that more coverage is forthcoming? –– Lid^(Talk) 08:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
            • You are the one making an absolute statement based of course on no evidence at all. It's obvious there could be further coverage if somebody plays up the "gambling can be tragic" angle, or if criminal charges are filed around any of the various incidents, or if someone writes a "poker characters" article, or if there are details we have no idea about currently. So "pretty much nothing else to be gleamed on the person" is very bad thing to flatly state. 2005 (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
              • I am making the statement as the contrary argument is the same as someone saying a non-notable bands article on wikipedia should remain because "they may become more well known... later." It holds little to no water as it avoids the notability argument by stating that their current notability is to be ignored on the basis of hypothetical notability. If Brandi does become more notable through more sources, outside of forums and niche poker news, then it can be re-created then, but in the here and now these sources and coverage do not exist and can't/shouldn't be used as a rationale to keep. –– Lid^(Talk) 09:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
                • That's not what you said, and no one suggested anything about her possible future greater fame being reason to keep the article. You stated "there is no chance of notability increasing". That's plainly false, and certainly no argument for deletion. I assume you see that now so let's move on. 2005 (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • That's what I said in the original deletion reason, yes, but this discussion is derived from this comment and reply: "there is pretty much nothing else to be gleamed on the person" followed by "There is a very good chance more coverage will be forthcoming. And of course it is no argument for a deletion." That reply is quite contrary to "and no one suggested anything about her possible future greater fame being reason to keep the article." –– Lid^(Talk) 10:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
                    • Please. I said nothing about that being a reason to keep the article. Clearly people can become more notable or famous after their death. That's no argument to keep an article. I only stated it because your "no chance of notability increasing" statement is obviously not true. 2005 (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree that "interesting" to the consumer shouldn't be considered at all. I'm new to Wikipedia and there are a lot of guidelines, that are often cited in the first instance as gospel to be followed religiously. But take a step back and consider the ultimate question. Here that question is whether this article belongs in this encyclopedia. The guidelines are there to help answer that question, but it can't hurt to focus on the ultimate question itself in the discussion. And whether the article in interesting to a reader of an encyclopedia is an importart fact in that discussion. And that's the context in which I meant my "interesting" observation. The example in the guideline is that whether I have pencils in my nose would be interesting but wouldn't make a good encyclopedia article. Of course not, but because is in not interesting to someone reading an encyclopedia. I don't go to an encyclopedia to find out whether you have pencils in your nose. An editor of a commercial venture better consider whether the product is interesting to someone who is considering buying (using) the product or the editor will be out of a job shortly. I would hope that we are doing the same at Wikipedia: considering the ultimate "customer." Jlawniczak (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It's not that interesting should not be considered, it's that interesting should not be used as an overriding reason to keep the article when it fails in other more important aspects (namely notability). Most articles on wikipedia are interesting in one way or another, but they have to fulfill other criteria to be articles, not just the topic being interesting. –– Lid^(Talk) 15:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:INTERESTING is not a valid "keep" argument. A one-time participant in the World Series of Poker falls short in the notability department. Her suicide or her boyfriend's description of her behavior and/or mental illness doesn't add to it. Apparently the article has been "sanitized" since the beginning of this discussion, thus eliminating some potential evidence for keeping (if it were indeed supported with reliable sources). B.Wind (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2008 (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.