Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Lyons


 * 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) 09:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Laura Lyons

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG,nothing  in the text that shows any Notability (people) Off2riorob (talk) 01:05, 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)Milowent (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Being Playmate of the month does not satisfy notability criteria. She appears to have no significant third party coverage, fails PORNBIO, GNG. EuroPride (talk) 14:59, 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) 15:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The text about the Playmate that accompanies the photographs of the Playmate is the significant coverage required by GNG. This is not the same situation as a picture of a model without significant accompanying text about the model. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep   The change in rule did not get wide consensus. It's simpler to keep them all in, than to go through and select and discuss them individually. The rationale is that this particular manner of publication is considered internationally as the standard of notability by nonspecialists.  DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I found that she has an imdb page and some 70s acting gigs which i added, plus press coverage about a protest she led against the Chicago Playboy club in 1975.--Milowent (talk) 03:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Millowent and DGG. Dismas |(talk) 04:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Being a Playmate is notable, whether WP:PORNBIO mentions it specifically or not. Also, IMDB shows multiple mainstream appearances: ¡Tintorera!, "Love, American Style", The Godfather: Part II. Dekkappai (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per Milowent's observation and her three mainstream roles listed at IMDb which meets WP:PORNSTAR. --Morenooso (talk) 08:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO per mainstream appearances. Epbr123 (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - due to Milowent's additions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:ENT, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG. All but one mainstream movie credit are for uncredited or nameless/generic character roles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:52, 28 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.