Deletion of Liz Stewart

Comment: She passes  easily per criteria #1 "(including feature of the month in these magazines)" by having been a Playmate of the Month
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PORNBIO)

Comment: Multiple media appearances and reliable sourcing. Clearly passes io. She's a celebrity, this is not a vanity page. It's becoming pretty obvious there's some time-wasting -making going on in this recent outbreak of AfDs. Sources on pornographic subject are being labled 'unreliable' because they deal in pornography. Does this law apply to other fields as well? Articles on a historical figure are 'unreliable' if they appear in a historical journal
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Bots (WP:B||WP:POINT)

Comment: passes , and the sources for her are probably out there if you look. Yes, I know the burden of proof is the other way, but looking costs nothing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PORNBIO)