Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debra Peterson

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 delete. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Peterson

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

After four years a two line uncited stub. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG,nothing in the text that shows any Wikipedia:Notability (people) Off2riorob (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At the time of the article's creation, subject was notable. However, the guideline has changed since then: simply being a "Playboy Playmate" no longer means that notability is guaranteed. A question here is whether this article can be kept per some kind of "grandfather clause". Still, I would say that this is probably a delete because it's an unreferenced BLP and I can't see notability under the new criteria. Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 21:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreferenced BLP article of a person who fails GNG & PORNBIO. EuroPride (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gillian Bonner and elsewhere--Milowent (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced blp. Hipocrite (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ENT, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG. Extremely minor role listed in imdb is apparently unrelated person with similar name. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the consensus at the RfC was pretty clear that this distinction is not suitable for inclusion within itself, and the RfC was widely advertised with much more participation than at these AfD debates. Because of this sourcing requirement no subjects get automatic inclusion or "inherited notability", which is basically the argument that some editors are making above. I haven't found the level of coverage necessary to meet the GNG. Them From Space 21:52, 26 April 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.