Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madeleine Rowan

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.

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 06:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Madeleine Rowan

Madeleine_Rowan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

This article violates WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and WP:COI (Self Promotion) Purgatory Fubar Converse or Snafu 14:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 19:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Only the Washington Post saves her from CSD A7. She has done nothing special yet. YechielMan 21:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment The rest of the sources are credible, if perhaps not among the most largely circulated newspapers in the world.
  • Keep
  1. CSD A7 says "article about a person, group, company, or website that does not assert the importance of the subject," but this article does assert the importance, mentioning that she was the "Youngest female" and that there are few women in the field, which makes her an anomaly and worthy of inclusion.
  2. Wiki says (under the 'Not a soapbox' warning), that "One measure of publicity is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line)." Rowan seems to have enough publicity and following to warrant the article.
  • Keep Keep in mind COI is a guideline, and exists because self-promotion is a decent sign that actual article requirements w/r/t notability, verifiability, NPOV etc. will be violated. Doesn't seem to be the case here (aside from one sentence that I've gone ahead and removed). Actual tone of the article is sufficiently NPOV to be consistent with NOT#SOAP. None of which is to repudiate the general principle of avoiding self-promotion, but it's executed with enough detachment here to be acceptable as an encyclopedia entry. Orphic 09:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 04:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, assertion of notability and non-trivial coverage. --YFB ¿ 18:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, youngest female WSOP entrant is notable enough. Washington Post writeup is more like a gathering of friends, but still notable. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep Ref. 1 is the newsletter for the event. #2 is a blog. #3 is a paragraph in a local online newspaper from an article mainly about her brother, #4 is a major paper with a human interest story-- but about a game in her living room, not the tournament claimed for notability, #5 is an incidental inclusion in a database. This is borderline documentation.DGG 00:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: Her achievement (Youngest female in the World Series of Poker) is notable. Her external links include distinguished news sources (Washington Post) and credible specialized sources of the poker world (CardPlayer). The article is written in a professional voice with no grammatical, spelling, or formatting errors. The level of importance/notability in the article and the professionalism used in constructing it contribute to upholding the standards of Wikipedia rather than interfering with its integrity as so many of the unworthy biographical articles do. This article is not the intended target of Wikipedia's efforts to preclude self-promotion. WikiFishy 01:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC) In addition, I just reviewed the standards for biographies of living persons and found this to meet all criteria listed (i.e. NPOV, verifiable and not original research). WikiFishy 02:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: This article is not in violation of WP:NOT#SOAPBOX or WP:NOT#INFO. The page more than "asserts" notability by proving it, providing ample support from well-known sources, all of which cross-check flawlessly with the information given. AlbertX 02:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notable and does not meet criteria for deletion. Yoopie 08:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Interesting and worthy. RubbaDubDuck 23:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Crappy article, though. Someone please help it. KP Botany 01:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per low cut blouse. RFerreira 05:58, 6 May 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.