Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly McArthur


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Kimberly McArthur

 * – ( View AfD View log )

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 03:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. How many minor actors & actresses have pages? Hell, when there are pages on Pokemon characters, how is this a big deal? As for Playmates not being notable in their own right, I'd disagree (& not only because I like having pages about Playmates). How many people can name Miss October '75? Quite a few, I'll bet. Moreover, without a page on her, I'd never have learned she was the cover model for the Christina novels. There is value being lost if this is deleted.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  07:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You actually oppose our inclusion criteria, and not this specific afd. --Damiens .rf 13:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Dekkappai (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. A regular role for multiple seasons on a network TV show plus multiple nontrivial movie credits means she satisfies WP:ENT independently of her Playboy work. Still enough nonPlayboy work to support an independent article. otherwise redirect to list article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - with being a Playboy Playmate no longer an automatic inclusion criterion these Playmates need to satisfy other criteria. She doesn't based on coverage in reliable sources appear to meet general notability. As an actress her resume appears to have fewer than ten entries, the last of which was over 20 years ago. Her only role that could be considered significant was a recurring role on the soap opera Santa Barbara. She appeared in 47 episodes out of 1,315 broadcast and they were all broadcast over a span of four months, not "multiple seasons". I don't believe she qualifies for an article under guidelines for entertainers. Harley Hudson (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough coverage for a stand alone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Like what for instance? Harley Hudson (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, please, elaborate so that it's not just a vote. --Damiens .rf 21:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - She satisfies criteria 4 of PORNBIO. She was a prominent character on Santa Barbara. and has guest starred on several popular 80s shows. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2011 (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.