Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erin Ness
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. CitiCat ♫ 18:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Erin Ness
Simply enough, this was my reason for putting a prod tag on the article: "Having one WSOP money finish and a couple of Game Show Network appearances does not make one notable; there are no articles from reliable sources asserting Ness's importance". User: 2005 removed it, noting in his edit summary: "rv nonsense tag; there are literally hundreds". Of course, aside from being rude, 2005 did not add any reliable sources to the article. Discuss. Kicking222 20:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - If there are hundreds (of what isn't too clear) then they don't seem to have made an appearance in the article. On the face of it the article doesn't meet WP:N or WP:BIO. So may I make a suggestion to the author? Ante up or leave the game. Thank you, I'm here all this week, please try the veal. --WebHamster 20:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. If we ever develop a notability guideline for professional or amateur poker players - and this may yet happen given the sport's popularity - I am sure she would fall below it. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 20:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep There are definitely references out there. I dug up a couple and added them to the article. She's appears to be marginally notable for being an attractive, marketable woman in a predominatly male dominated game. I'd say she's a borderline case. -Chunky Rice 21:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Viewing her poker accomplishments alone she clearly doesn't meet the notability guideline, yet due to the significant media coverage she received at the 2004 World Series of Poker, lead her to be featured in the multi platform video game World Championship Poker 2 as well as being invited on the nationally aired television program Poker Royale: Battle of the Ages & Poker Royale: Young Bloods. she is also the Photo Editor at Maxim [1] the magazine also list her 35th in their 100 Greatest Moments ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 21:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Multiple television appearances, part of the Maxim 100, vast amounts of mentions on notable websites, and not even the slightest justification for nomination aside from an uniformed POV. Seriously, making frivilous nominations like this is a rude waste of every one's time. Do some reasearch before nominating articles that you have no knowledge about. At the very least type the name in a search engine for pete's sake. Since she plainly meets criteria of WP:N and WP:BIO a withdrawal of the nom and speedy close are in order. 2005 22:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - perhaps if you'd done more than just remove the prod and left a cryptic comment then this may not have been necessary. Just a thought. --WebHamster 22:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- There was nothing cryptic about it, unlike your comment above. In the future, before commenting on AFDs you should also do at least 15 seconds of research. A simple google search reveals by any measure a huge number of non trivial mentions of her on a wide variety of websites. The rest of us have a right to expect you and the nominator to at least have done a search before creating work for other editors. 2005 22:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- As I haven't made any edits or nominations I haven't made any work for any editors other than for myself taking to time to comment here. Now as I said, if you'd done something useful and used your knowledge to add information to the article instead of just removing the prod with virtually no explanation. Now that has created work for others. Personally I base my comments on what's in the article, not what MIGHT be elsewhere on the net. You DID know something and chose not to do anything about it. looks like we have a case of pot, kettle, black. YMMV.--WebHamster 22:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- "Personally I base my comments on what's in the article, not what MIGHT be elsewhere on the net." If true, then please stop making comments now. The idea that all stub articles should be deleted simply because no one has fleshed them out is terrible. Please in the future make comments on the notability and bio criteria of the subjects, not the text that may only briefly cover the subject now. 2005 23:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- And you're giving me these instructions under what authority? It strikes me that you are doing your level best to distract from your omission to do anything that could have prevented the "rude waste of time" allegation you levelled at the nominator and myself. The fact remains you had info to hand and did nothing with it. I didn't have the info to hand and didn't go looking for it. I avert that your 'crime' is the more serious of the two. --WebHamster 23:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Both of you need to chill out. Discuss the article, not each other. -Chunky Rice 23:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- And you're giving me these instructions under what authority? It strikes me that you are doing your level best to distract from your omission to do anything that could have prevented the "rude waste of time" allegation you levelled at the nominator and myself. The fact remains you had info to hand and did nothing with it. I didn't have the info to hand and didn't go looking for it. I avert that your 'crime' is the more serious of the two. --WebHamster 23:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- "Personally I base my comments on what's in the article, not what MIGHT be elsewhere on the net." If true, then please stop making comments now. The idea that all stub articles should be deleted simply because no one has fleshed them out is terrible. Please in the future make comments on the notability and bio criteria of the subjects, not the text that may only briefly cover the subject now. 2005 23:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- As I haven't made any edits or nominations I haven't made any work for any editors other than for myself taking to time to comment here. Now as I said, if you'd done something useful and used your knowledge to add information to the article instead of just removing the prod with virtually no explanation. Now that has created work for others. Personally I base my comments on what's in the article, not what MIGHT be elsewhere on the net. You DID know something and chose not to do anything about it. looks like we have a case of pot, kettle, black. YMMV.--WebHamster 22:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The above exchange highlights one problem I'm seeing repeatedly on AfD discussions: as soon as an article is nominated for deletion, editors start to come out of the woodwork with "Keep" !votes and sources supporting notability that, arguably, should have been in the article. Leaving aside the question of who should be criticised for what, I do think there are still important issues to be addressed here. Why is this information not in the article? To put it another way, if editors cannot be found who are willing to provide verification in the article of the subject's notability, isn't deletion the best thing for that article? Or is the process acceptable in its current form? Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 23:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should take up the deletion of all stub articles in the appropriate place, which most certainly is not here. 2005 00:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Per Sirex. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Per Sirex and 2005. It seems like this nomination was retaliatory because the nominator didn't like an edit note someone else made. Not a good reason to delete an article. Rray 23:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's quite a mean thing to say. I originally prodded the article, meaning I thought it warranted deletion. Another user removed the prod tag. By WP guidelines, the next step is to send the article to AfD. In repeating what I put in the prod tag and what the tag's remover wrote, I was only highlighting my issues with the article without having to type it all out again. I followed the process to the letter, so I'm not sure that you can claim my reason for wanting to delete the article is payback, as opposed to, say, WP:BIO and WP:RS. -- Kicking222 16:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. I wasn't being mean, and I didn't say that this was *definitely* your motivation. (Notice the use of the word "seems" in my original comment.) Since you felt the need to point out someone else's perceived rudeness in your nomination, it makes it seem like it was retaliatory. Had you left that point out, it wouldn't have seemed that way. At any rate, sorry you thought I was being mean. I wasn't. Rray 21:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Accepted. I'll admit that I should've kept the nomination to the facts instead of throwing some of that... I can't think of the right word, so I'll use "emotion"... into it. But I do want to make it known that, in nomming the article, it was purely because I felt that the article required deletion, but another user disagree, so I had to bring it here. -- Kicking222 16:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. I wasn't being mean, and I didn't say that this was *definitely* your motivation. (Notice the use of the word "seems" in my original comment.) Since you felt the need to point out someone else's perceived rudeness in your nomination, it makes it seem like it was retaliatory. Had you left that point out, it wouldn't have seemed that way. At any rate, sorry you thought I was being mean. I wasn't. Rray 21:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's quite a mean thing to say. I originally prodded the article, meaning I thought it warranted deletion. Another user removed the prod tag. By WP guidelines, the next step is to send the article to AfD. In repeating what I put in the prod tag and what the tag's remover wrote, I was only highlighting my issues with the article without having to type it all out again. I followed the process to the letter, so I'm not sure that you can claim my reason for wanting to delete the article is payback, as opposed to, say, WP:BIO and WP:RS. -- Kicking222 16:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment someone above mentioned developing a threshold for inclusion of poker players. IMHO we have a number of articles on flash-in-the-pan players who don't really merit wiki articles. A guideline similar to WP:PORNBIO would be ideal. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 00:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:OR. Notability is not subjective, and this person is not notable. Not verifiable due to lack of sources, and there isn't enough content to warrent keeping.--SefringleTalk 03:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Where do you come up with that? This is in no way original research. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 03:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, the sources are from the poker website she plays for. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- What on Earth you talking about about? Obviously original research is no part of this. My goodness. 2005 06:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep but begin establishing notability guidelines, possibly discuss on WP:POKER ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 13:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment. Establishing notability guidelines for poker players is a good idea. Rray 21:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know that we need anything than what's already present in WP:N and WP:BIO. I think that poker players would fall either under entertainers or sports or some combination thereof in the WP:BIO criteria. -Chunky Rice 22:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Establishing notability guidelines for poker players is a good idea. Rray 21:50, 5 September 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.
