Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Carrington (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. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Not notable model who played volleyball at high school. Playboy playmate is no longer a notability qualifier and has been removed from WP:PORNBIO Off2riorob (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Don't like to disagree with Off2riorob but this just feels wrong - I am sure the reasons behind changing WP:PORNBIO are sound and this is not a reflection on Off2riorob he is right to ask the question. It just feels like we have changed the rules lets boot her out Codf1977 (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Dismas |(talk) 14:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes WP:GNG for me. Dismas |(talk) 14:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well she is not notable and does not pass GNG, there is no coverage at all. She has done nothing apart from once be in Playboy so there can not be coverage, if we are to simply say we like the article so lets keep it then it is pointless in having any guidelines at all. Yes porn bio has changed and this AFD reflects that. Off2riorob (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are we going to see a rebuttal from you for every keep vote. You asked on the talk page if anyone thought this article should go through another AFD and then waited just 14 minutes before going forward with it.  You made your point clear at the outset that you would like this deleted.  We got the point.  You can let it go now.  Dismas |(talk) 15:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Pornbio is depreciated, and just being in playboy and having some local interest stories does not pass GNG. Hipocrite (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Satisfies GNG with at least 3 different reliable sources that are intellectually independent of each other. How often does Sports Illustrated write a feature about a playmate? Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I repaired the dead link. There are three independent citations all from from September 2008 all about the fact that she was in playboy and with a little report about her life, this does not pass GNG. There is also no continued coverage at all, please consider that by suggesting that this passes GNG degrades the whole guideline. http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2008/sep/09/martin-county-grad-playboys-miss-october and http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/sioncampus/09/17/carrington/index.html http://www.gainesville.com/article/20080909/NEWS/809090158?p=1&tc=pg Off2riorob (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability is not temporary Codf1977 (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * These three reports all about the same thing (that she was in playboy) and all written in the same week don't assert any notability. Think about it with an open mind..Is she notable? No she is not.She looks nice but her life and her achievements are not notable. She belongs in a list. She is no more notable than this person http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kassie_Lyn_Logsdon Off2riorob (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * They establish to me that she is notable as a playmate playmate and misleading cover model for another issue. That is the claim of her notability. Nowhere is there a requirement that coverage is extensive on her personal life to flesh out a bio. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Easily passes GNG with three sources which are not only independent reliable, but which don't regularly cover the subject's area of notability. Just another "I don't like it" AfD after re-writing the rules based on the personal biases of a few editors... "Zapping PORNBIO didn't do it, let's see if we can tweak GNG so that it excludes subjects we don't like..." Don't be surprised when that happens. Dekkappai (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes but a few users that are interested in porno doesn't make policy, she does not pass the GNG guideline at all, if she does then it is a worthless guideline, some editors may like it and want to keep it but she passes nothing apart from the inclusion in a list award. Off2riorob (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, hi, Rob. Just call me "Off to Tokyo/Seoul Dekk". Though it's been a few years. Really want to go back, but with this Bush economy hanging on it's hard to get the funds together... And I had a lot of fun in the smaller Japanese cities like Fukuoka, and small Korean cities in the countryside like Buyeo and Gongju are really nice-- like taking a step back in history. And the people are extremely friendly. Good food too! Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In your opinion she does not meet it - I am on the fence for the moment, I can see your point - however it is not black and white the guidelines are just that I think tt all boils down to what is significant in relation to what her claim to notability. Codf1977 (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Codf. RioRob doesn't appear to be listening to any statement from the "other" side, hence my attempt to change the subject... could have talked about volleyball, I guess, but I've got more interest in travel. Gee, I hope nobody starts claiming charming little towns in Japan and Korea are not notable... Nothing to stop someone from doing so, of course, as absurd AfDs like this one continuously prove... Dekkappai (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Dismas & Morbidthoughts. Tabercil (talk) 04:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: I realize this is part of a good faith mass nomination by Off2riorob, so I am posting basically the same comment on all of them.  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. (see also AfDs of 2010 playmates).  In addition, In this case, though, it looks like additional sourcing to show notability is already present in the article.Milowent (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough coverage to pass GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 11:02, 22 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.