Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sammie Pennington

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. Singu larity 03:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sammie Pennington

Non-notable biography. Brianga (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete not sure whether being a cover model on those mags is meets the notability requirements but, the statements at least need to be sourced properly. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: She's certainly been on a great many covers and in a great many mags, with nearly 400 unique hits on Google UK; does a Page 3 girl fall under WP:BIO generally or WP:PORNBIO? Was there an attempt at a sourcing tag first? RGTraynor 13:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She hasn't been on that many covers namely two or three for Zoo and front... If u let this model in, u will have to allow all the models who have been on three or four covers as well. Should Wikipedia be a forum for glamour models and porn stars??? Plus she's virtually unknown outside the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.136.50 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 27 May 2008

Since this is the English-language Wikipedia, not the "American" Wikipedia, the degree to which Pennington is well known outside the UK is irrelevant. RGTraynor 21:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Just about notable, but the article needs a lot of work to be even passable. Bienfuxia (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If she was on so many magazine covers surely she would recieve significant coverage in reliable sources. But until that's manifest in the article, she has not met the notability guidelines. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources means she does not meet the criteria for an encyclopedic article. I am influenced by the complete lack of ghits in Google news, both google.com[1] and google.co.uk[2]. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps she is known in the Uk but she is hardly a houshold name except among young me from the age of 18-24. The article shows little to demonstrate why she deserves an entry. Maybe she does, but the article needs to be rewritten and referenced better. As the article stands regardless of whether she deserves an entry or not is almost irrelevant. The article itself is not authoritative enough as it stands at present and for that reason alone should be deleted. I for one do not feel that Wikipedia should be a forum for promoting models or porn stars. In some cases I could understand this say Pamela Anderson or Anna Nicole Smith as they transcended their respective fields and were well known generally. However, as the previous author states surely if Ms Pennington deserves an entry then almost all glamour models do as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.23.128 (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2008 (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.