Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia McClain


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  C T J F 8 3  chat 04:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Patricia McClain

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG,nothing in the text that shows any Wikipedia:Notability (people). After four years a two line stub with one dead citation. Off2riorob (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes GNG per coverage found on Google News. Epbr123 (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Epbr123. What's this? A telegram from Old Nick? "Brr. Getting cold down here." it says... Dekkappai (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't like the insinuation that Santa is in hell. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh never mind. Old nick is not Santa apparently. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Santa's an anagram, you know ;-) Dekkappai (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, "Old Nick" is an old name for Old Scratch. Maybe I'm showing my age again.... I'll dodder off... Dekkappai (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per my comment at Articles for deletion/Gillian Bonner and elsewhere--Milowent (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG via Google News. Dismas |(talk) 14:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Source or Delete. Article source appears to not exist. Source or delete. Hipocrite (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Google News search. I will expand it. Nominator has not done minimal due diligence in checking findsources before mass-nominating playmate articles for deletion. He has not considered whether the page can be improved per WP:ATD. If he is uncertain about an article's notability, he should tag it with a notability tag to give other editors time to expand the article with proper sources rather than impose an automatic 7-day window through an AfD. This mass nomination is pointy and reckless. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This one appears to meet WP:GNG as there's a lot more independent coverage than on most. Note that I've voted Delete on several others in this batch of nominations. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:36, 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.