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 ~Kylu (u|t) 03:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lena Li[edit]

Only the thinnest assertion of notability for this non-notable model. Deleted once after uncontested prod, but was shortly recreated. No coverage in WP:RS. Fails all criteria for inclusion, including WP:V, WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:PORNBIO, etc. etc. Valrith 21:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Non-notable model?!?! I really wish people would do more of their own research, before tagging and listing for deletion. She has been a cover model for Playboy! (among others) I even had already spent a mere two seconds with google to provide you with a link earlier. Even with a very brief glance over she appears to be ok. Mathmo ^Talk 21:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Can you say c-o-v-e-r m-o-d-e-l ?! You're kidding me when you say non-notable, aren't you?--Kkr ou ni 23:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My feelings exactly! Mathmo ^Talk 02:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple Playboy-related covers, prominent calender covers for three years, several online biographies, subject of an interview... Notable. Dekkappai 00:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay, but do we really need to know her shoe size? Clarityfiend 01:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's part of the ((Template:Female adult bio)), and I found the information, so I included it. Along with blood type, it's a statistic of interest in Asian countries, though maybe less so in others. If you think that bit of information is not necessary, feel free to join in the debate here. Dekkappai 01:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't pre-determine what a person may or may not find of interest. For instance it is quite likely I'd find it an interesting fact if a person had AB blood type, it is not that common. Mathmo ^Talk 02:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Multiple online biographies?? I see two, if you're extremely loose about defining biography. One of those is little more than a gallery page, and neither of those is a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valrith (talk • contribs)

1<2. Mathmo ^Talk 23:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep I think being a cover model of a major publication is enough to establish notability. — brighterorange (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: perhaps this AfD should be speedy closed, it is clear the article is going to be kept. Mathmo ^Talk 04:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If I were in a bad mood I might make an accusation of WP:OSTRICH here. Very notable model. WP:PORNBIO does not apply to people who appear on the cover of Playboy otherwise you'd have to place people ranging from Jessica Alba to Katarina Witt under this banner. 23skidoo 19:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tending to feel that perhaps even more generically the ostrich concept needs to be applied to this nominator.... oh well, I hope Valrith can learn something from the nomination of this article. If so, then it wasn't completely a waste that it was nominated. Mathmo ^Talk 23:20, 2 August 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.