Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meghan Allen


 * 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   no consensus. No prejudice towards renomination. NW ( Talk ) 18:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Meghan Allen

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article should be deleted because it is not notable and is used as an advertisment for a business website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meadvillebulldog (talk • contribs)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The nominator puts his money where his mouth is, and should be applauded for that: he has been trying to remove Allen from the Meadville, Pennsylvania, article, arguing that she is not notable; nominator and I disagreed and I suggested he take it to AfD, which he has done. I'll refrain from voting here and will let the community decide. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak Keep She is not thouroughly unknown, and being featured in a national publication like Playboy is not exactly obscure. Now, that being said, is it enough to warrant an article on her? I'm not sure, but I'd like to err on the side of inclusion in hedge cases like this. And there is precedent on allowing subject-owned websites on WP, IIRC. Now, I'd like to know if she herself or someone associated withher created the article. That would put it into a different sphere of absolutely delete with prejudice. Pat Payne (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * comment The text of the article certainly suggests enough content to estbalish notability, but there are no references for almost all that content. If someone could just provide in line cites, for example to her magazine, TV show appearances, there wouldn't be an issue. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep well known public figure. Askadaleia (talk) 08:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 05:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. She might be notable in the future, but isn't yet. Fails WP:ENT and fails WP:PORNBIO if we want to go that route. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP since public person and article contains enough informative facts, but no advertising. There are hundreds of articles alike in the category of female adult actors and they are kept as well, without questioning.--125.78.45.226 (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2009 (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.