Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Leigh Andrews


 * 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   delete. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Amy Leigh Andrews

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not notable Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Wasn't it recently decided that 'Playmate of the Month' was no longer sufficiently notable?  David V Houston (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment When putting an article up for deletion, you need to state why you are putting it up for deletion more then "not notable." Why is this person not notable? Just saying not notable is not giving the people information they need in discussing a biography related AfD.  Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 18:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG,nothing in the text that shows any Notability (people). Off2riorob (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: I understand that WP:PORNBIO was changed recently via Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2010 but I don't think that outcome necessarily reflected true consensus.  The bright line rule of "every playmate gets an article" was much easier to administer and reduced editor overhead time, instead of us spending lots of time deciding that some (most?) playmates get articles and a few get shuffled off into some "playmates of 200x" article.  I guess we'll see, if these articles get deleted, whether they get successively recreated.--Milowent (talk) 04:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * delete or merge to list article. Does not evidence notability as defined by substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources unrelated to the subject. Hipocrite (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete since I haven't found significant coverage of her to meet WP:N. The consensus at the RfC was pretty clear.  Them  From  Space  00:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As I have added proof of at Articles for deletion/Sandra Nilsson, a playmate article has not been deleted at AfD since mid 2004 (and that was only once), so the RFC seems a bit askew from the past precedent, for whatever you feel that is worth.--Milowent (talk) 02:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Our standards have increased dramatically since mid-2004. Back then you could practically get an article about anything on here.  Thankfully today we have higher standards than that. Remember, consensus can change.  Them  From  Space  03:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed it can, but the AfD history show the opposite here.--Milowent (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Has some independent coverage but not enough to pass WP:GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 10:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per above. No evidence of passing notability criteria in WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. EuroPride (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep   consensus is and remains that athis is a major achievment and they are all notable.  DGG ( talk ) 08:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: My !vote above was mostly a blanket vote (no playmate article has been deleted for something like 6 years), but did no one google this person?  I see all these hits about her being reported to be a potential "girlfriend" to Hugh Hefner.  I added two cites to the article.--Milowent (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:ENT, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG. Being mentioned in gossip columns for one's willingness to sleep with a geriatric celebrity is not evidence of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * to the geriatric celebrity it is.--Milowent (talk) 18:47, 27 April 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.