Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandi Hawbaker (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   keep.  MBisanz  talk 08:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Brandi_Hawbaker
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

stub article of unimportant person DegenFarang (talk) 11:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * and to summarize in general the reasons behind the first AFD and the current discussion: this person technically meets the requirements of WP:NOTABILITY but lies in the grey area of "covered in reliable news sources but of very limited interest to a small group of people." She was a drama-bomb in a small circle of poker players.  Her achievements as a player alone were virtually nil. ♣ ♦ SmartGuy  ♥ ♠  (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets general notability guidelines, as noted by User:SmartGuy.  The article is adequately sourced, and there are plenty more reliable sources available if anyone thought they were needed.  Article is short, but not a stub, could be expanded (and in any case "stub" is not a valid reason for deletion).  I also think Hawbaker crosses any gap or grey area that may exist between verifiablity and notability.  As User:SmartGuy notes, she did not win much as a pro poker player, but she did "attract a significant cult following" within that world, a criterion from Notability_(people) -- probably the category under which a pro poker player fits best. Moreover, her story speaks to the state of the pro poker world, and of our notoriety/media-driven society in general.  In short, this article needs expansion, not deletion.  Baileypalblue (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. While she did have something of a cult following, it was not for anything that was reliably reported in reputable media, more for a series of alleged scandals.  I'm not sure she can even be called a professional poker player as most evidence points to her losing far more than she won in her short career.  The article currently only lists her very modest tournament winnings which isn't enough to really justify an article in my opinion.  RommiePlayer
 * Weak Keep Barely notable Ijanderson (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Being a short article isn't a valid reason for deletion; that's a reason for expansion. Notability is questionable, but the multiple reliable sources in the article indicate some weak notability anyway. Rray (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Though she didn't win much and only had four money finishes, in my view that makes her notable. The article does need some work, however. ArcAngel (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. She isn't notable for her poker, but for her well-publicized odd behavior and subsequent suicide. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete In current form the article is laughably incomplete, and due to WP policies (and the lack of new 'news' about the subject) will likely never be able to be made whole. DegenFarang (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not customary for the person nominating the article to "vote". Rray (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * remember that Degen is new around here. He nominated the article so it is understood that his view is to delete it.  It's fine for him to contribute to the discussion, tho ♣ ♦ SmartGuy  ♥ ♠  (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't forget, but if no one tells him, he'll never know. :) Rray (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not know that, thank you. DegenFarang (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable with adequate sources and coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep She was an important and notable personality in her field (which is becoming more visable).  Her story is interesting.  I believe it is appropriate for an encyclopedia, especially one with 2.8 million entries Jlawniczak (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete even though I am in the minority here. Her case is an example of a subject that meets the letter of Wiki law but not the spirit.  We can find a bazillion Google hits on her, her name mentioned in CardPlayer once or twice, and her odd behavior was, as User:Clarityfiend says, widely publicized.  That really doesn't amount to diddly squat, though.  She was and still is of interest to only a very small circle of fanboys within the poker world, was nowhere close to being anything that resembled influential in the field, and is of no interest at all to anyone else.  This is a fringe article.  Send it to the Wiki graveyard. ♣ ♦ SmartGuy  ♥ ♠  (talk) 04:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Her name was more than "mentioned in CardPlayer once or twice" -- when she died, Card Player, which is the leading magazine in the field, ran a full-length obituary about her.  JamesMLane t c 07:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability established by references, winnings, and circumstances. Article needs expansion, though. Dayewalker (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree if there was anything to expand upon. However she is dead now and what does exist Wikipedia rules does not allow to be included. So there is no way to expand it. And notability is not established by her 'winnings', not by a long shot. DegenFarang (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This may be true, but "needing expansion" isn't a valid deletion reason. Rray (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The article can be expanded, it just needs some legwork to do so. ArcAngel (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting that you say so, as your source was just removed for 'nowhere near a reliable source'. I disagree, Neverwin probably did more research and coverage on Brandi than anybody in the world...however I know how 2005 and others get on these poker articles and to include any one source like that is going to take an all-out war. This is not an argument for deletion so much really, just a statement of fact and this discussion might be better suited to the article talk page, as it doesn't look like consensus supports a deletion. DegenFarang (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You can read more about what is and isn't considered a reliable source here: Reliable_sources. And yes, that discussion does belong on the article's talk page. 17:23, 31 January 2009 (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.