Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sable Holiday
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 22:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a vanity advertisement for a non-notable. Melanchthon 14:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - she may be grotesque, but Google gives enough hits to suggest to me that, although she may not be particularly notable (in my opinion) she may be well known in certain circles. But the last couple of sentences need to go - advertising. CLW 15:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete seems of at best marginal notability to me. i have removed the specifically promotional content from the article. DES (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable within her genre (no less so than Tawny Peaks, Pandora Peaks, etc etc.) 23skidoo 18:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable enough. Kappa 23:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Would like to see this individual's name, etc., as part of the research. I am not sure of the appropriate cat or stub, either. >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 00:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notable for what? Denni☯ 23:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- For the number of people interested in her. Kappa 23:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- *''Sigh''* - They're not interested in her, Kappa, they're interested in her tits. And have you any evidence, other than your own opinion, of the number of people interested in her? The article, like too many others you vote to keep, is frighteningly short on details. Denni☯ 00:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If no-one was interested in her, there would not be so many websites using her name. Kappa 01:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- *''Sigh''* - They're not interested in her, Kappa, they're interested in her tits. And have you any evidence, other than your own opinion, of the number of people interested in her? The article, like too many others you vote to keep, is frighteningly short on details. Denni☯ 00:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- For the number of people interested in her. Kappa 23:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A local stripper, apparently. I have no objection to that, of course, but this is not encyclopedic. Gamaliel 03:48, 3 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.