The result was no consensus to delete. Though partially derailed by justifiable objections to the mass nomination, it does appear that this particular article is better-sourced than some. Taken on its own merits (rather than en masse with other Playmate articles) there's a vague consensus that this is sufficiently sourceable to conform with policies - although further efforts to merge or redirect it are not excluded. ~ mazca talk 12:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete. Though partially derailed by justifiable objections to the mass nomination, it does appear that this particular article is better-sourced than some. Taken on its own merits (rather than en masse with other Playmate articles) there's a vague consensus that this is sufficiently sourceable to conform with policies - although further efforts to merge or redirect it are not excluded. ~ mazca talk 12:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply