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. The subject fails to meet the relevant notability guidelines. The argument by the keep voters that the subject meets WP:ATHLETE was discounted, as she was not actually an athlete and therefore does not qualify for the sports players’ inclusion criteria. Per the discussion below, she also fails to meet WP:PORNBIO or WP:GNG. NW (Talk) 22:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Mullins

[edit]

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

Unfortunately, this person doesn't seem to have done anything to prove they can pass our notability policies for people. iMatthew ^talk at 02:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Worked at the top level in her sport, justifies notability. We got a few refs as well to back up the info in the article.--WillC 08:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't defined by working at the top level for a few weeks, if she was even around that long. It takes time to establish notability, which she never did. If she ever returns and sticks around long enough to do something important, we can then consider giving her an article. We give too many articles to minor wrestling people. Additionally, the amount of refs don't matter. iMatthew ^talk at 10:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hate how broad it is, but ATHLETE does just that. Take baseball, for example. Someone could play in 1 game, but according to ATHLETE, that automatically makes them notable enough to have a article (now you see why I hate that guideline and wish it would be changed, and why I am against it being applied to wrestling since every local jobber than appears on one episode of WWE TV would get a article). TJ Spyke 22:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources, and I agree with WillC. Get Dumb 10:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Leaning towards delete~~, agreed with iMatt that appearing once or twice on WWE TV is not the top level of her sport, especially since she wasn't even in a match. Appearing in FCW doesn't establish notability either, since it is nothing but a glorified farm team. The "sources" used are for the most part unreliable and don't help establish notability. She isn't notable in wrestling, but I haven't researched her modeling career enough yet to make a 100% decision either way. Right now I am leaning towards delete. Nikki♥311 19:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Couldn't find much on her modeling career, except her appearance in Playboy (but not as a playmate)....so now my opinion is to delete. Nikki♥311 18:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't say she performed at the highest pro level and invoke "Athlete" when she was an interviewer - that's not an athlete. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 05:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WillC Tarheel95 (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overwhelming keep Big Way (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will's argument is flawed - she has not worked "at the top level of her sport", she's an interviwer - and that's not a sport ;) MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk

Correct, and the above two votes will obviously not be taken seriously. iMatthew ^talk at 10:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems like the relevant guideline ought to be WP:ENT, and passing or failing WP:ATHLETE is irrelevant. Has she "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions"? Appearances in multiple notable productions seems clear (WWE and Playboy). I'm unsure about the significance of those appearances as I have virtually no experience with either WWE or Playboy. Gruntler (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- She appeared once or twice on ECW in a role that only lasted minutes. I'm not sure what the notability guidelines are for Playboy appearances....I'm sure a mere pictorial wouldn't be enough to establish notability (whereas Playmates or centerfolds would be a different story). In my opinion, WP:ENT isn't met either. 76.17.38.195 (talk) 03:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The above comment is mine. I wasn't logged in. Nikki♥311 03:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She's currently on the main WWE roster and appeared in Playboy. There are other less notable Playboy models with articles. LucyDoo (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just being there doesn't mean she's done anything. A small photoshoot and just being on the roster doesn't tell me what she's done to deserve an article. iMatthew ^talk at 19:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - She has been in a featured place on WWE TV and not just the once either. She's on the main WWE roster to back that up. Suspect a POV push by the nominator. Keep !! Justa Punk !! 06:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Listen, like I said. This is a discussion. What do you think I'm doing? I'm discussing some of the comments that I disagree with. Strike out your comment. iMatthew ^talk at 10:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I was referring to your nomination as a POV push, not the discussion. There is no reason for me to strike out anything, unless you are trying to own this AfD. !! Justa Punk !! 02:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        How is my nomination a POV push? And of course there is a reason to strike your comments out. When you make idiotic and pointless comments, they should be struck. iMatthew ^talk at 02:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are not adequate to meet WP:N, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:PORNBIO. — Jake Wartenberg 22:09, 21 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.