Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milan Nalina (2nd nomination)

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Nalina[edit]

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

No indication this model satisfies the GNG or any specialized guideline; listed "references" fail WP:RS and are mostly links to back issue magazine retailers; no indication article can be expanded beyond stub -- no Gnews hits, GHits appear to be only galleries and magazine retailers. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies note 3 on WP:PORNBIO as a two-time Playboy Playmate. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Change vote to delete. Misread the playmate thing. !vote is per convo below. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. She's never been a Playboy Playmate (in fact, there's not even a claim she ever appeared in Playboy itself), and she's not a porn actress. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Working off of the assertions that she's been in there. If she's not a playmate, she's not a playmate, but is appearance in the book of lingerie good enough for the purpose? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally not. The guideline links to the Playmate article, which defines its subject specifically as the centerfold model in the magazine itself. This model has appeared only in what are usually referred to as Playboy "newsstand specials," and those models aren't automatically notable. See, for example, List_of_Playboy_NSS_models_A-F. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not a playmate, not notable per GNG or PORNBIO. Dismas|^(talk) 20:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To hot to Delete [1] & [2] -Snorre/Antwelm (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable according to PORNBIO and GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2009 (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.