Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shae Marks

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) 04:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shae Marks

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. It gives you minor tv appearances and some ad contracts. 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 03:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 19:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Acting credits probably satisfy WP:ENT and aar sufficient to justify an independent article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - her handful of acting credits do not meet notability guidelines. Only significant role was thirteen episodes of a single-season failed TV series. Harley Hudson (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough coverage for a stand alone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And examples of this coverage would be...? Harley Hudson (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where can we find such coverage? Is it substantial or just trivial, as expected for most playmates? Please, elaborate to support your view, otherwise it's just a vote. --Damiens.rf 21:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PORNBIO and ENT due to her multiple TV roles. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [1]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.