Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colleen Farrington

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) 16:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colleen Farrington

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

Fails to meet the new criteria of WP:PORNBIO. Prod was rejected with the summary "Diane Lane's mother, seems like an AfD is in order", to which I reply notability is not inherited. People must be notable in their own right. NW (Talk) 12:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can reject a PROD on a coin flip, if I felt so inclined - that's why we have AFD. The objection need not be sound, so long as it is made in good faith - it just needs to be made. That said, you're right - notability is not inherited. Not being familiar with the new PORNBIO, let me ask - if this article was compliant before, and isn't now, is it reasonable to expect that the article could become compliant with some work? If so, then I'd say we keep and improve. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question/Comment. Are you sure WP:PORNBIO is the proper rule for a Playboy model? I am also not an expert on that protocol but I'm pretty sure that it is more specific than just modeling and dancing, which is the case here. I would suggest looking at WP:ENTERTAINER, which might help Ms. Farrington, as well as the WP:NOTINHERITED rule, which might not. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looking over Google News and Google Book hits. It seems like she satisfies the general notability guidelines and criteria 4 of PORNBIO given her theatre roles have been covered by reliable sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sources need to be in the article and not "out there" on Google or discussed here at Afd. I would like to see expansion before a decision is made on my part. - Stillwaterising (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not the standard though. Bad articles which can be improved generally shouldn't be deleted.--Milowent (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I added a few more sources to the article. Maybe being a playmate by itself is no longer considered de facto notable, but that plus acting/singing mentions, plus coverage incident to her daughter seem to cross the line.--Milowent (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several references and credits seems to pass GNG for me. Dismas|^(talk) 04:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources added. keep per Milowent. - Stillwaterising (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2010 (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.