Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackie Rainbow

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. Shimeru (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Rainbow

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

This were undeleted after an IP wrote "Every playmate deserves to have an article. They may not meet the porn critera, but that's because they aren't porn in the first place. They are an American Icon and part of history itself." Since it was prodded originally, I am sending it over to AfD. I do not believe that the article meets any of the relevant notability guidelines. NW (Talk) 11:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. Fails GNG and all other notability guidelines. EuroPride (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These playmate articles may not meet the notability criteria for pornographic actors and models, however they are not really pornographic models by the standards of today’s modern society. They are however American popular cultural icons, virtually as American as apple pie. A playmate has more in common with the Venus de Milo then Jenna Jameson, and though there may be limited information on some of these earlier playmates, due to the fact that not even playboy itself kept stats and biographical information on them. The fact remains that they are each unique and deserve their own article / page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.160.132 (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and BIO. Epbr123 (talk) 07:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep' I agree they are all essentially american cultural icons. A simple standard of keeping them all is the easiest way to deal with it, and the fairest, and does no harm. DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC) ,[reply]
Delete. Fails the GNG and all relevant specialized guidelines. I don't even see a reliable source for the claim that the name given is the article subject's actual name. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the General notability guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 18:17, 6 May 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.