Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol Shaya (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 KEEP. postdlf (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Shaya

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

Not notable, posed nude, got fired, and that was 1 time event, been a private person for last 14 yeears Mister vicky (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC) "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister vicky (talk • contribs) 11:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see from your edit history that your very first edit, which was today, was a well executed starting of an AfD and this AfD was only your sixth edit. Can you please tell us what account this is a sock of? --Oakshade (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are numerous sources, easily passes the WP:GNG, she was the subject of a documentary, etc etc etc. Why are we going over this again?! Dismas|^(talk) 01:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dismas. Easily passes WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - totally agree with the nominator, low notable one event private people have a right to removal from the project under WP:BLP1E - Off2riorob (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once she decided to pose for Playboy and accept large funds, her WP:BLP1E status became history. --Oakshade (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one small and local bit of titilation does not make the subject notable. MLA (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all coverage related to the single event. Subject fails WP:BLP1E. Oakshade's accusations of sockpuppetry are completely in bad faith and totally unacceptable. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, Floydian, the nom was blocked for sockpuppetry. If you feel my charging the nom was a sockpuppet was "unacceptable", then by all means start an RfC. I strongly welcome it. --Oakshade (talk) 03:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for the the WP:BLP1E, the person went on to be an actress and starred in a nationally released film. This is in addition to the the posing in Playboy. WP:BLP1E is for "low profile" individuals, not someone who several times placed themselves into the national spotlight. --Oakshade (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 15 minutes of fame were over a long time ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.124.64.197 (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC) — 77.124.64.197 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This user's IP address is in Israel, the same location of the nom's sockpuppetts. --Oakshade (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dismas. nominator is a dirty nasty sock.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Subject has easily cleared the bar set by BLP1E, as argued by both Dismas and Oakshade, and as documented in the article. Way more than sufficient references to satisfy notability. I also question the nomination by a sock, and the delete vote by an apparent SPA. To quote Dismas: "Why are we going over this again?" — Becksguy (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Posed nude. Got sacked. Went direct to video. If this person has been "in the national spotlight several times", I'm an aardvark. The Land (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, you just described this person being "in the national spotlight several times", plus you're not address our guidelines of WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO, which many users here are advocating this person passes. Shall we call you Cerbus?--Oakshade (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2011 (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.