Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shirley Rosario


 * 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. no one aside from the nominator suggested deletion JForget  00:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Shirley_Rosario
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Subject is not notable. Tournament player with minor success, owner of a website used as spam across Wikipedia, former prop player of Bicycle Casino and article is plagued by original research and peacock statements.DegenFarang (talk) 08:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Plenty of very references that plainly meet WP:N.  Assertion about spamming the wikipedia is false and nonsensical and part of nominators WP:POINT campaign as it has been added by numerous good faith administrators and other editors over a period of years. 2005 (talk) 08:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. No valid deletion reason given. Subject is notable, and the article includes multiple references to assert notability. Being a former prop player at the Bicycle Casino has no bearing on a subject's inclusion in the Wikipedia. Original research and/or peacock statements are not reasons for deletion either. Rray (talk) 09:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Aside from a few minor tournament cashes her work at the Bicycle is the only thing she has done. Women in poker tend to get more press coverage than men - that doesn't mean she is a more notable poker player. $170,000 in career earnings is pitiful. There are thousands of people with a higher number. DegenFarang (talk) 10:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Press coverage *is* the defining factor for notability. Her career earnings, her job at the Bicycle, and the "thousands" of people with a higher number are all irrelevant to a deletion discussion. You can view a list of valid deletion reasons here: Deleting_an_article.
 * Strong delete Subject is not notable and the article exists as self promotion and promotion of her website. DegenFarang (talk) 10:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you nominated the article for deletion, your opinion is already on record. It's not necessary (or common) to vote in the AFD yourself. i.e. Your nomination for deletion indicates your delete vote. Rray (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:poker has been notified of this discussion--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep NYT considered important enough for an extended quote in an article, which seems sufficient here. Puff is best dealt with on the article, not by AfD. Collect (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So everybody ever quoted by the New York Times is notable enough to have their own article? DegenFarang (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Straw argument, that. The NYT does not generally choose "people off the street" to be cited in featured articles.  As a general rule, the edit standards of the NYT are to use "people known in the field." Collect (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep While I agree with DF that PokerBabes.com is a questionable website for sourcing articles, the website is a reputable poker blog with a reasonable following. Shirley is also notable enough as a female poker player to be sought out for interviews and comments---in part due to her website.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep No genuine reason given for deletion. This AfD is motivated by the nominator's pokerbabes campaign. Hazir (talk) 07:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you missed the first four words: Subject is not notable. This is another prime example of poker notability sexism. There are hundreds of men who have achieved more in their poker and business careers than Rosario that would not be considered notable - but because she is a woman and gets more attention by the poker press because of that fact, she gets in. Very sexist. Just like the WSOP playback. They give no credit to the quiet online superstars but the loud idiots who have no idea what they are doing - and women - get all the TV time. Wikipedia should not follow that lead. DegenFarang (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2010 (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.