- 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, article lacks sufficient independent sourcing. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of independent notability. Wryspy 01:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I think that being a Playboy centerfold is noteworthy of notability, but Playboy Cyber Girl is not Corpx 04:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Vague AFD statement. Are you saying that apart from her website notability is not established. I will add a few things in the next hour or so to establish independent notability. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment She google tests at over 2.5 million hits and is from a notable (by wikipedia standards with 2 sisters and a cousin having articles) family (which only helps ever so slightly).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No. If you enter the name with "Amy McCarthy" in quotation marks so that the works have to be side-by-side, it's 80,500. And then start looking at the actual entries. A huge number of them are not about her. As for your previous remark, having a notable family does not denote individual notability. Wryspy 16:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand notable family does not denote individual notability, but on the margin it helps ever so slightly as I stated above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Google "amy mccarthy" "playboy" "-com" (to remove commercial sites) and you get 61 hits - many of which are not about her. MarkBul 20:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Sources are the magazine she appeared in and web sites of questionable reliability and independence. Edison 21:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I thought magazine appearances support notability.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Between her two magazine appearances and her acting credits, I feel she's notable. Dismas|(talk) 04:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing encyclopediac at all about this. NBeale 10:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - an appearance in Playboy (as opposed to being a centrefold) is not notable. Her acting credits appear to be non-notable small parts. And being related to someone notable doesn't cause it to transfer. -- Whpq 16:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - The Playboy article was apparently a roundup of Cybergirls rather than a dedicated article, which is just enough to knock me off the fence on this one. However, I think she has gotten enough attention that there should be a redirect to her sister, and I favor retaining the history in case her career progresses. --Groggy Dice T | C 01:41, 15 September 2007 (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.