| Revision as of 14:39, 3 May 2011 editMorbidthoughts (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users24,355 edits keep← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:34, 3 May 2011 edit undoDamiens.rf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users23,536 edits →Sharry KonopskiNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>-- ] (]) 20:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)</small> | :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>-- ] (]) 20:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)</small> | ||
| *'''Keep''' - easily passes GNG and ] with her news coverage. Coverage about her playmatehood is not disqualified from the GNG. ] (]) 14:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' - easily passes GNG and ] with her news coverage. Coverage about her playmatehood is not disqualified from the GNG. ] (]) 14:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC) | ||
| *: Coverage about her playmatehood is not automatically disqualified, but is usually trivial, as explained in ]. Have you seen some non-trivial coverage about her that you would share with us? | |||
| *:Of course, like in others AfDs about non-notable playmates, you may chose not to provide evidence for what you state and simply expect a gullible closing admin to take your word for that. --] 20:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:34, 3 May 2011
Sharry Konopski
- Sharry Konopski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 02:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep News coverage 10 years after being centerfold, seems clearly notable. Article needs improvement with additional references, not deletion. Monty845 03:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Article needs significant improvement, but I believe the subject received enough coverage over her injuries and attempts to continue to model despite paralysis to justify an independent article. Weirdly, she's also in the news this week as a peacock rancher (or whatever). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - easily passes GNG and WP:BASIC with her news coverage. Coverage about her playmatehood is not disqualified from the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Coverage about her playmatehood is not automatically disqualified, but is usually trivial, as explained in WP:BASIC. Have you seen some non-trivial coverage about her that you would share with us?
- Of course, like in others AfDs about non-notable playmates, you may chose not to provide evidence for what you state and simply expect a gullible closing admin to take your word for that. --Damiens.rf 20:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)