Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liz Stewart: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m →[[Liz Stewart]]: keep |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Not notable. Does not pass [[WP:BIO]] as she has not been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. [[User:Epbr123|Epbr123]] 13:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC) |
Not notable. Does not pass [[WP:BIO]] as she has not been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. [[User:Epbr123|Epbr123]] 13:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' She passes [[WP:PORNBIO]] easily per criteria #1 "(including feature of the month in these magazines)" by having been a Playmate of the Month. <span style="font-family:monospace;">[[User:Dismas|Dismas]]</span>|[[User talk:Dismas|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 15:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' She passes [[WP:PORNBIO]] easily per criteria #1 "(including feature of the month in these magazines)" by having been a Playmate of the Month. <span style="font-family:monospace;">[[User:Dismas|Dismas]]</span>|[[User talk:Dismas|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 15:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
**[[WP:PORNBIO]] specifically states that criterion on its own does not establish notability. She fails the central notability criterion, which is that the subject has been covered by multiple sources which are independent of the article subject and are reliable. [[User:Epbr123|Epbr123]] 16:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 16:15, 16 March 2007
Not notable. Does not pass WP:BIO as she has not been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Epbr123 13:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep She passes WP:PORNBIO easily per criteria #1 "(including feature of the month in these magazines)" by having been a Playmate of the Month. Dismas|(talk) 15:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- WP:PORNBIO specifically states that criterion on its own does not establish notability. She fails the central notability criterion, which is that the subject has been covered by multiple sources which are independent of the article subject and are reliable. Epbr123 16:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)