Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiffany Williamson (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  No consensus (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Tiffany Williamson (2nd nomination)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

First AfD resulted in a weak keep consensus based off misreading the WSOP ME as a sports competition and thus simply competing is a sign of notability, when it is not. Fails WP:N and WP:BIO. –– Lid(Talk) 00:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC) This AfD has been announced to Wikiproject Poker
 * Delete Article created by Gutshot Poker Club to link to and advertise the Gustshot Poker Club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.236.226 (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NN, WP:BIO.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 01:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reluctant keep. She plainly meet WP:BIO... Assciated Press/MSNBC, the Guardian, twice, plus this, and this and innumerable other online references that can be summed up as "worst poker player in the history of the universe".  Notability doesn't need to be for skill.  A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.  Slam dunk, if reluctant, keep. 2005 (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. She has not recieved significant coverage. The aforementioned links revolved around the media finding an interesting story about an African-American woman attorney in a poker tournament. The story is very interesting, but that doesn't casue her to meet the notability requiremtns of WP:BIO. All the coverage revolved around one event, i.e. a classic WP:BLP1E. Not every semi-interesing person meets the wp:bio requirements becasue of some media coverage. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - article seems to assert some notability, but the subject fails WP:BLP1E. She seems only notable for that one event. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 03:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Reliable sources, and a poker career that extends beyond one event. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of independent coverage. The few news hits from 2005 seem to solely mention the novelty of a female in the tournament, but do not seem to be profiles of her. Notability does not seem to be established.  Reliable sources are not even referenced in the article. (I could be convinced with independent coverage, but...I couldn't find anything significant.)  Frank  |  talk  03:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I would say that being a pioneer woman poker player is her notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * She is pioneering in no significant way. No significant notability should be ascribed to her for that.  Women previously finished higher in the WSOP main event than her.  She is the highest finishing black woman, but no coverage that I am aware of highlights that. 2005 (talk) 06:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe we need to trim Wikipedia down to just the gold medalists in the Olympics. Why cover more people than necessary. Notability isn't being number one, it is when the mainstream, reliable media take notice of you for whatever reason. The Wikipedia threshold is when more than one media outlet, independent of the subject take notice, and the new addendum, is that it can't be for a single event. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your argument is a strawman, no one here is saying only winners of poker tournaments are covered or that even you need to win poker tournaments to be covered. I can list off the top of my head about a dozen notable poker players who have not won a major tournament but have had significant coverage or substnational monetary careers without outright winning. This article is not being unfairly put out in some deletionist ramapage, she's simply non-notable for her poker "accomplishments". –– Lid(Talk) 01:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I'd say that the sources above to convey some notability, and my motto is "when in doubt, keep!". Atyndall93  |  talk  03:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Per 2005 and Richard Arthur Norton. Dismissing the coverage as "the media finding an interesting story" seems to me to be a conclusion, not an argument. Also, I think Lid's assertion that the WSOP is not a sports competition requires a bit more explanation, especially if the first AfD resulted in a keep because the opposite was considered the case. Maxamegalon2000 06:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability (people) number eight: Participation in and in most cases winning individual tournaments, except the most prestigious events, does not make non-athletic competitors notable. This includes, but is not limited to, poker, bridge, chess, Magic:The Gathering, Starcraft, etc. –– Lid(Talk) 06:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, subsequent to that afd a strong consesus was reached int wo venues that merely entering a poker tournament is not similar to being a major league baseball player or PGA Tour golfer. So her entering conveys no notability. 2005 (talk) 06:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "except the most prestigious events". Which her winning was. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * She did not win. She came in 15th. 2005 (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep – I agree, that a majority of the news coverage around Ms. Williams was in 2005. However, as the Google News search shows, Ms. Williams is still well enough established in the Poker mania to at least be mention in a news article as recently as of January of this year. ShoesssS Talk 20:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep An amateur finishing 15th at the 2005 World Series of Poker Main Event is pretty notable (the highest female since Annie Duke in 2000), and her antics in the process and the other players' annoyance got plenty of coverage to add to that notability (stalling, looking to the crowd for help, walking away from the table). She was definitely not your run-of-the-mill player, and no, she also was not "the worst player in the history of the universe." You don't finish 15th in the WSOP on luck alone. Eauhomme (talk) 05:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above.▪◦▪ ≡S i R E X≡  Talk 02:14, 2 June 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.