Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marilyn Waltz


 * 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   redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1954. Redirecting per WP:NSUPER. Consider this a keep close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Marilyn Waltz

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No sources found. Non notable Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The fact that she is a three-time Playmate alone would make her one of the most notable of Playboy's models. —Lowellian (reply) 06:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think the 3 appearances aspect is a sufficient notability hook here. Needs to be sourced out. Carrite (talk) 06:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect, but to where? subject still fails both WP:GNG & WP:PORNBIO.  So she was a centerfold 3 times, did this fact receive any coverage by a RS?  If so I'd change to keep.Fasttimes68 (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Although the three=time-Playmate claim isn't a terribly strong basis for notability, there really isn't a clear enough redirect target, and the subject is clearly a plausible search term. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm just not finding a lot of sources here, which means she fails WP:BASIC and WP:PORNBIO. She kept a pretty low profile after her modeling career. A possible merge target would be Playboy Playmate. Valfontis (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Valfontis (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak delete . Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1954. The best claim is "three time playmate". But there's effectively zero results aside from this. So she fails WP:GNG. There's no real need to redirect if we don't have a place to put her name; given the lack of sources, deleting is a much better idea. tedder (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no need to "delete". If not kept, we can redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1954 since she appeared twice that year. The 1955 entry, which already exists, can include a link to the 1954 entry.  Every other not individually notable playmate gets redirected.--Milowent • hasspoken  19:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I should have seen if that page exists. I struck and changed my !vote to redirect. tedder (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect' per tedder. Fails the GNG and should not be kept as a separate article, but her name is properly included in the list of Playboy Playmates and as such can reasonably redirect there.  Eluchil404 (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: I am in favor of keep over redirect, with the three appearances nudging her over the line.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:30, 8 April 2012 (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.