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 Non-admin speedy keep. Nom is banned as sockpuppet, no delete votes. Clearly passes general guideline.Horrorshowj (talk) 05:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Shaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

• Delete not notable, or at best notable only for one event, not substantial}

Cunextuesday (talk) 05:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Cunextuesday[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets GNG handily, which should be sufficient. Notable for a series of events (modeling, dismissal, lawsuit, and documentary). Well developed article. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems to have everything we expect notability-wise. And DAMN look at all of those references. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - Meets GNG easily with all of the references. BLP1E does not apply when she has gone on to do other things since her Playboy appearance. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well sourced article showing subject's notability. Nominator's good faith claim of failing WP:BLP1E is inapplicable, as BLPIE instructs "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events... ... fit into this category." Her persistant coverage in multiple reliable sources over a 14 year period show easily meeting of notability through WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:BIO without problems. Warrah (talk) 02:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Let's see if we get the equation right: Being a Playmate does not automatically make one "notable" (according to a few Wiki-blowhards). Therefore simply being a Playmate means one is automatically "non-notable". DELETE THEM ALL!!! Why am I not surprised?... Dekkappai (talk) 03:25, 4 March 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.