Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Playboy Interviews

List of Playboy Interviews

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This list is very incomplete, and only includes interview subjects for some years in the twentieth century, and none in the twenty-first century. The only sources are the Playboy magazine archives in which the interview appeared, so that there is no independent sourcing to establish list notability.

Draftify as nominator. This might be a useful list article when completed. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been expanded and is in the process of being completed. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 07:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Popular culture, and United States of America. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Page is under construction and other editors are welcome to help complete the list. The main Playboy article frames the value of the interview to the success of the magazine. The Playboy interview is known as one of the most thorough features delving into celebrity, politics, sports, and current affairs. Over the next few days, the list will be completed and additional sources will be added for notable interviews which have been quoted in other media. Let's give this some time to be built before deletion. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The table is already well populated considering the task at hand and would only improve given more time to add content and additional references. The sources only being Playboy magazine archives in which the interview appeared makes good sense as the way to develop this article currently. Rockycape (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Incomplete is never a valid reason for deletion. Notability is though. I see The Rolling Stone Interview that mentions why the interview section is notable, then links to some interviews. Doesn't list all of them, which is odd, no selection criteria listed. Anyway, nothing else at Category:Interviews is like this. Are we going to list every magazine there is, and all the famous people they interviewed? Dream Focus 13:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of this magazine's interviews, several sources point out that the magazine's body of work has had the same cultural impact. Ref: (1) (2) (3). Other sources are cited in the article. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 07:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see the great amount of work that @GimmeChoco44 has been doing. Dont see anuthing wrong here in temrs of notability either. Vorann Gencov (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HARDWORK applies. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources” – as presented here [1] and here [2]. Meets WP:CSC and WP:LSC. I think we should keep the list as it gives a broader understanding of the topic. Repurpose is also okay for me. Vorann Gencov (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Strong keep; HEY, WP:NLIST applies. If we start deleting incomplete lists or articles, then the whole thing can go straight to the bin.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an insignificant list that doesn't merit an article but is probably a violation of WP:PROMO. desmay (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with "insignificant" -- the influence of the "Playboy interview" is documented by many sources (some are cited in the list article). In addition to the comprehensive content of the interviews, the breadth of subjects (world leaders, entertainers, businessmen, athletes) is often cited as a benchmark for periodical journalism, and the list provides an overview without undue burden on the main Playboy article. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary database. Some of these interviews didn't even happen and were mere copy-paste job. Azuredivay (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a wild and unsupported claim. Not only did these interviews happen, but the proof exists in both printed and digital sources, and the interviews are referenced by major sources such as Los Angeles Times and Associated Press. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another unnecessary list that serves nobody but the most ardent fans. Lists like this needs to be purged off the already bloated Wikipedia site to keep it from becoming the poor Fandom imitation it already is. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General comment: Since the essay about arguments to avoid was already cited, I will mention 2 other sections: Wikipedia:UNNECESSARY and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Most opinions are more or less respectable but guidelines should prevail and WP:NLIST is the applicable guideline.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]