Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 April 28

< 27 April	29 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Ward

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

Delete (not merge or redirect): This is a vanity page for someone completely non-notable. I realize she just died and I don't mean to sound unsympathetic because I know she had a large family that loved her, but this doesn't change that fact that the entire article consists of her being the mother of boxer Micky Ward, who was played by Mark Wahlberg on film. Her death can be included in her sons' articles. (I originally requested a speedy deletion but rather amazingly this was denied so I am going this route.) Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree, as it seems do several other editors who have helped with the article and the one who denied your speedy deletion request. She was a real life person that someone won an Academy Award for portraying, and although brief a article as it is (it may get longer as more people want to add, there IS more information out there, she deserves her own article on Wikipedia, and as of now there is not one mention of her on her sons Wiki page's so there is no where to add her. It's also important as a part of the Academy Award history for people who are looking for information on Oscar Winning Characters. If Leigh Anne Tuohy deserves a page, so does she. (Rharrington 00:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)) Rharrington112 (talk)

Actors get nominated for awards for portraying non-notable characters. In itself, it is not argument for keeping an article about a subject portrayed – a person whose only notability is being mother to two boxer sons. Nor is she the central subject of the film. Bear in mind that WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, this article seems to be in violation of, as it stands. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, give it time: It was only created roughly 23 hours ago, so there's still time for information to flow in. She is a pretty notable person, considering she was portrayed in an Oscar-winning film. If she was only the inspiration, fine, not that notable, but since she does have a credible background, i feel she meets notability. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 22:42 28 April 2011 (UTC)

She died recently, at the ripe old age of 79. If she was genuinely notable, it is likely she would have had an article long ago, and not upon her death. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rharrington112 - Your logic is seriously flawed. I don't know much about Leigh Anne Tuohy, but the movie was about her (Tuohy's) philanthropy. If you want to AFD the Tuohy page go ahead -- it has nothing to do with this page, aside from Academy Award winning actresses. As far as Alice Ward, with all due respect and with serious curiosity, may I ask how she "meets notability" other than being the mother of Micky Ward and Dickie Ecklund? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't she the manager for them at a time IIRC? Connormah (talk) 06:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think my previous statements are not flawed and are valid. If someone writes an Academy Award winning role that is solely about this person, I would say that is notable enough. The news of her death is on every major news site and people are obviously interested in her and her life. (Rharrington 01:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)) Rharrington112 (talk)

Rharrington112 - Your logic is seriously flawed. No one "deserves" an article, btw. I don't know much about Leigh Anne Tuohy, but the movie was about Tuohy's own philanthropy and actions, not her sister or her husband or her son, etc. If you want to AFD the Tuohy page go ahead -- it has nothing to do with this page, aside from Academy Award winning actresses.

You keep saying "I think" or "I would say". Try "I can show because..." Other than being the mother of Micky Ward and Dickie Ecklund, Alice Ward is non-notable. Most people have mothers and fathers; parents do not accrue notability by dint of their children's accomplishments, even if their characters are played on celluloid. In short, she doesn't merit her own article just because Melissa Leo was nominated for an Oscar and happened to win. I haven't seen such a threadbare blatantly sentimental vanity article in quite a while. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually people do 'deserve' articles. That's the point of notability and deciding who has it and who doesn't. They did something that warrants public interest and acknowledgment. It's been clearly stated that her son's wouldn't have had a career without her help, she was their manager. I can guarantee you that Leigh Ann Tuoghy wouldn't have her own page (much less be known to the public) if Sandra Bullock wouldn't have won an Oscar for portraying her in a film. Very few performances are nominated for or win an Academy Award that are based directly on real people and considering all that has to take place for that to happen it's quite an honor. I'm sure the article will grow in time, more information will be released when they make funeral plans, and I will try to add to it myself. (Rharrington 01:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)) Rharrington112 (talk)

I suppose it is remotely possible that a valid article can be made about Alice Ward that will show her objective notability. The current article, which contains less information that an average New York Times paid obit, should be deleted, and a new better article created when/if one ever comes into being.

No one "deserves" an article, just as no one is entitled to a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame or an Emmy or Tony or Academy Award. Many deserving folks have not gotten the stars or awards I would say they deserve, but life is a witch (with a capital "B") sometimes, ain't it? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 12:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTINHERITED -- neither from her sons nor from the actress who happened to win an Oscar playing her (an Oscar confers merit on the performance, not the role). No independent notability is even articulated, let alone established. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Hrafn above. Nymf _hideliho! 11:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage of her death has been reported in numerous journals internationally such as The Guardian and so the topic is certainly notable. If there is not much to say about her then we might merge into another article but, as we have at least three related articles - Micky Ward, The Fighter (2010 film) and Melissa Leo, it seems best to keep this short article here as a link between them. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS: "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." (my emphasis) As to the argument against merging, there would be no reason why mention of her could not be included in Micky Ward (the most closely related article, e.g. as part of a 'Family' section), with links from The Fighter (2010 film) and Melissa Leo to the appropriate section. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 22:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: this is a vanity page, whether it originated in "Southie" or not. I am sorry she passed away, but if she were notable why was the article only created after her death? It is an insult to everyone's intelligence to pretend otherwise! Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity pages are written by the subject but this person is dead and did not write the article. The claim that this is a vanity page is therefore false. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be flippant. It is an obvious vanity page, written by someone ~~close to her~~ despite her clear non-notability. An article doesn't have to be written by its subject to be a vanity page. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created by an editor who has created other articles related to the cinema and theatre such as Estelle Hemsley and De'Adre Aziza. Your claim of a personal connection seems absurd and you present no evidence. Accusing an editor of vanity without any evidence is a personal attack contrary to our civility policy. Please apologise and withdraw. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obituaries are quite satisfactory for our purpose as we write summaries rather than exhaustively detailed biographies. Such sources are very suitable for establishing notability as they demonstrate a good level of general interest in the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, what point here is in dispute? I am not disputing this but an obituary by itself does not ipso fact confer notability, especially a "paid obit", which is what I made reference to earlier in this colloquy. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Guadian article which I cited was not a paid obituary. The interest in this case seems to derive from the connection with the Oscar award not payment or vanity. The resulting obituaries are therefore satisfactory as evidence of notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "an obituary by itself does not ipso fact confer notability", as I said. I am not going to apologize for anything. The editor who created this article may have created other articles, but that doesn't mean this one is valid. He or she exercised very poor judgment in creating what amounts to a vanity page. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as cited above by Hrafn: "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I will not go so far as to call this a vanity page, but if all the obituaries have is that she was the mother of two famous boxers, WP:NOTINHERITED fits perfectly. She must be notable in and of her own right. Hence why we have Kate Middleton, Pippa Middleton but no James William Middleton; the same applies. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In a clear case of WP:BEANS we now do have an article about cake maker James William Middleton Bob House 884 (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Colonel Warden, I see. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Although I see that it has already been nominated for speedy at least once and may end up here within a couple days. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No long term notability, whilst her death is sad there only appears to be fleeting coverage which, with respect, seems to be of the 'and in other news..'/cat stuck up a tree variety. The arguments that she inherits notability from either having been played in a notable film or having reared successful children don't have much grounding as has been noted. Bob House 884 (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If they are notable enough to be listed in the obituaries of major newspapers, that makes them a notable person. Dream Focus 14:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you keep making up these rules? If anything, Wikipedia guidelines say the exact opposite.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't just a passing mention in the obituaries, or a paid announcement, but a full article on someone a major newspaper has decided notable enough to do an article on. [1] Dream Focus 19:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only claim to notability is her son, if she didn't have the son she wouldn't have had the obituary in a major paper and there would have been no film. Agree that WP:NOTINHERITED fits perfectly. J04n(talk page) 16:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is not inherited and has no long term notability. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you serious? No long term notability. People 60 years from now will look back and watch The Fighter just to see Melissa Leo's portrayal of her, and they will want to know about the real life person, I know I do after watching movies based on real people, especially Academy Award Winners. )talk) (Rharrington 21:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rharrington112 (talk • contribs) [reply]

I'm not sure you fully understand wikipedias policy on notability. For better or worse, we don't like to keep articles solely because they contain potentially useful trivia. Perhaps in a year or two, some journalist will publish a well researched piece on the life and times of Ms. Ward or some details of interviews between her and Leo will be published and then we'll be able to create an article - heck, if your right about the public interest in real life film characters, this is virtually certain to happen - but at the moment all we have is a few rather short tertiary sources which only really tell us three facts (i.e. that she was the mother of Micky Ward and Dicky Eklund, that she was played by Melissa Leo and that she died in 2011), this doesnt make for 'significant coverage' Bob House 884 (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - notability is not inherited. Yaksar (let's chat) 01:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable per Bob House, and per my comments above. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being played by someone notable in a film doesn't necessarily make a person notable. In this case, there doesn't seem to be enough coverage of her, outside of the reports of her death, to suggest that she's notable enough to deserve an article. Robofish (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable in my opinion. The news coverage of her death cited is mostly about the movie and who played her, and even then isn't in-depth or significant. Thparkth (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2011 (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.

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MultiGulper

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

Contested PROD. Article about a piece of software lacking evidence the subject satisfies the general notability guideline. Speedied as spam after creation by User:Multigulper. Recreated by an SPA after User:Multigulper was blocked. -- Rrburke (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sources don't meet notability threshold, and SPA origin suggests probable spam. Dialectric (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. According to their own news, the software is still in beta. -- Whpq (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2011 (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.

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. postdlf (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Quinn (pornographic actor)

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Subject appeared in eight pornographic films in the 1980s. While the article claims the films are "consider among the best" for their era, the cited sources don't support that claim; while they mention one or two of the films, the article subject is noted only in passing. The original AFD was quite contentious and closed as no consenus; it took place during the Ash/Benjiboi fracas over gay porn. Much of the sourcing for the article, added during the initial AFD, has proved questionable or phony; what remains does little more than show existence and confirm the subject's participation in the porn industry. Two of the three book sources are effectively identical, as one reprints the relevant chapter from the other. The article subject simply lacks the coverage required to establish notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete - coverage of gay erotica and pornography is woefully underdone on Wikipedia so it disturbs me to see any aspect of that coverage removed, but an examination of available sources doesn't support a separate article for this performer. I see in the last AFD that his apparent status as a Playgirl Man of the Month was deemed equivalent to being a Playgirl Playmate, and in the interest of gender parity I agree. That automatic notability for Playmates has been deprecated so in fairness the same standard should apply to Playgirl Men of the Month. Harley Hudson (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to keep. I have no bias either way regarding PotM, but there appear to be numerous other awards given to this individual such that I am inclined to keep this article, even in basic stub form. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: - Does not meet standard of notability for porno actors.--Burkina Faso (talk) 07:06, 5 May 2011 (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.

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Radcliffe

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

Porn performer who appears not to meet WP:PORNBIO. It is not clear to me that they would meet WP:GNG so I'm opening this up to wider discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO and the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2011 (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.

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Modarres

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

No source support that this individual meets WP:MUSICBIO -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 22:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: obviously fails WP:Music, no secondary reliable sources could be found. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keb25 (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2011 (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.

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa Flood of 2010

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

WP:NOTNEWS CTJF83 21:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the flood may be worth mentioning at Ames, Iowa or at Hilton Coliseum, it wasn't the "big deal" that the Great Flood of 1993 or the Iowa Flood of 2008 were. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:05, 1 May 2011 (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.

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Eskow

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

Eskow does not appear to have received any coverage in reliable sources outside of his own various blogs and websites. This entry reads as self-promotion trying to pass for encyclopedic. Gotophilk (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most bloggers are not notable, and a search of news items does not reveal many reliable sources about this person. Since there are some sources starting in 2010, perhaps he's more likely a one-note celebrity. Bearian (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2011 (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.

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential blame

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

Made up term. delete - UtherSRG (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC) UtherSRG (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Made up and with suspicions of PoV too. Peridon (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The president himself could write a better article. This doesn't even talk about presidential blame, it talks about Hooverville, shantytowns, and the PPACA. Speedy delete should be revisited. CycloneGU (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CycloneGU. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No special meaning to this term as a stand-alone concept separate from the plain-sense meaning of the words. Agricolae (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:SYN --Reference Desker (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all above comments Jnorton7558 (talk) 07:39, 3 May 2011 (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.

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. Serpent's Choice (talk · contribs) makes a good point in the discussion about the reliability of the sources provided; the column used for the entirety of this article's referencing has no real intention to be reliable journalism. As such, the article is clearly lacking in any kind of reliable sourcing. No convincing argument is made for any particular redirect - though if someone takes it upon themselves to incorporate a sourced mention of this phenomenon into another related article, a redirect would at that time be appropriate. ~ mazca ^talk 12:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wenticko

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

notability of wenticko in question Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 20:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Weak sourcing, at best. I'm curious to know if this "Wenticko" is related to the more notable Wendigo phenomenon. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Jamaica Gleaner is a publication with a pretty long history. However, the Roving with Lalah column is a collection of local color stories and that sort of thing, and isn't really held to a traditional journalistic standard. If someone felt generous about this material, duppy could probably find room for a mention -- no more than a sentence, though, really. If that happens, then clearly a redirect would be appropriate. Otherwise, delete; there isn't really anything more substantive out there. Serpent's Choice (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wendigo as a possible alternative spelling. -- œ ^™ 10:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the redirect. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 18:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually disagree with the redirect. There is certainly not enough material for an article on this topic, and arguably not for inclusion in another article, but Wenticko is -- according to everything that does exist on the topic -- a named Jamaican duppy which has no relation to the similarly-named Wendigo. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete and Oppose Redirect. There is coverage in the Gleaner, however, the coverage is only from a single reporter, and I can find no other sources that write about this duppy. The redirect is completely inappropriate. Is there any evidence that Wenticko, a particular manifestation of a Jamaican ghost is also Wendigo, an Algonquian mythical creature? Is there any evidence that "Wenticko" is used as alternate spelling for "Wendigo". If you have such evidence, please put it forward aas I have looked and there is absolutely none that I can find. -- Whpq (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Completely" inappropriate eh? Is it so hard to imagine that people searching for "Wendigo", never having seen the word as written, may misspell it "Wenticko" because of the phonetic similarity? -- œ ^™ 14:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply - Many misspellings are possible. We do not need to anticipate all these different misspellings. Do you have any evidence this is a common occurrence? -- Whpq (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None. -- œ ^™ 17:07, 5 May 2011 (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.

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project Xenocide

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

Could not locate satisfactory sources for verification (WP:V) or for asserting notability (WP:N). Tagged with these concerns since April 2010. Marasmusine (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Marasmusine (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in relaible sources to establish notability. It wasn't notable back at the first AFD, and over the years, has not garnered any coverage, and development has now officialy been abandoned. -- Whpq (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2011 (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.

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bomcard Trilogy

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

non-notable book series - disputed prod. also, the creator left a comment on the talk page that makes it seem likely that the article is intended as advertising. Kevin (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' per nom, fiction like this should be referenced with reviews, Sadads (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice to recreation if it becomes notable in the future. It is way too early to have an article about a trilogy when only the first book of the trilogy has been released, and in April 2011 at that. The first book, Destiny, hasn't received enough coverage (yet?) to establish it as notable, but it, and its author haven't been ignored either. The Melbourbne Weekly, a community paper has devoted some coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2011 (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.

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. Has reliable sources. Meets inclusion criteria. SilkTork *^YES! 20:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tor Air

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

This article about a minor charter airline that does not yet seem to be doing anything much has no reliable indpeendent sources about the subject, what sources there are seem to be about someone who is rumoured to be chartering this carrier rather than being associated with it (as thew article erroneously says he is). Zero evidence of actual notability, only four planes and three of those are operated by someone else. Guy (Help!) 20:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article was already been discussed for deletion. The result was keep --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 03:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fairly recent Keep AFD. Nothing changed that would make it a deletion worthy article.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per my entry on the first AfD discussion. Also the fleet info was added in mid-March by an IP editor and is completely unreferenced (the ref for the fleet details is from 2010). The articles about the other two airlines don't shed any light on the situation, but I wouldn't mind betting that Tor Air is operating aircraft for those two airlines - as that is what it does - rather than the other two airlines operating aircraft for Tor Air. The article has become messy, but that means it needs cleanup, not deletion. YSSYguy (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article needs more work but for ICAO to issue a code and callsign they must think it is of note. MilborneOne (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to the home web page, this airline offers public scheduled passenger air service, such as four flights in May from London to Stockholm. Public passenger air carriers are public sector institutions and come with a presumption of notability because people with governmental authority have a bias for safe airplanes, and editors can expect to find governmental records for public passenger airlines. I don't know why the nominator thinks that the Daily Mirror, which has been publishing since 1903 and with distribution over 1,000,000 daily, is not independent or why it is not reliable. The Daily Mirror and The Swedish Wire reports of a Tor Air plane starting air service from Baghdad to London after 20 years without such, fits in my book as worthy of notice=satisfies WP:N. Unscintillating (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2011 (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.

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Frey (winemaker)

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

Fails WP:ARTIST--claims for notability as an artist more compelling than for those as a winemaker (which is to say he has no notability as a winemaker), but still fails. Valfontis (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete: Fails notability per WP:BIO since all of the sources are (probably) shallow mentions. Even the external links barely mention him (zero or one instances of "Frey"), and are mostly about the winery. —EncMstr (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO/WP:NOTE, etc. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can only find trivial mentions of him in reliable sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Trisaetum Winery - there are sources, but most talk about the winery. SilkTork *^YES! 20:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Trisaetum Winery per SilkTork - the sources provided mostly mention him in that context, and at this time this article is actually better sourced than the parent. Hence, leaving history intact to allow a merge and cleanup of the winery article is probably the best way forward. ~ mazca ^talk 12:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a heads up to those !voting merge/redirect, I'll likely take the Trisaetum article to Afd as well. It's nothing personal, but although the article is sourced, that doesn't mean that the winery is notable. I did do some checking before prodding, and I'll do my due diligence before taking further action. Valfontis (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Although it doesn't affect notability, I should note that both articles/adverts were created by SPAs. Valfontis (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2011 (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.

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 achievement of the subject is sufficient for mention in List of International Mathematical Olympiad participants but not for a standalone article per our inclusion criteria, which requires that independent and reliable sources indicate notability by writing in depth on a subject. SilkTork *^YES! 20:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iurie Boreico

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

The subject's only claim to fame is winning the IMO three times. There has been consensus in the past that this is not on its own considered to make the subject notable. The basic criterion for inclusion of a mathematician is WP:PROF, which the subject fails. For mathematics competitions, the criterion is usually WP:ATHLETE, which excludes student competitions. In specific cases, WP:GNG has been invoked, and in those cases there were generally other positive reasons for inclusion. For example, Reid Barton was written up in Science magazine, and in addition won the Putnam medal four times. Earlier discussions can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reid W. Barton (which was kept, largely because of arguments that I made there) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darij Grinberg (which was deleted). Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Winning five medals at IMOs is at least equivalent to being named All-American in basketball or football, which has been enough notability in the past (see thousands of biographies of college and high school athletes, e.g. Michael Gilchrist, Andre Drummond). --bender235 (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From WP:ATHLETE: "High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. Note that the first clause would exclude all school papers and school websites that cover their sports teams and other teams they compete against. The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications. It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability." That doesn't seem to be the case [2], although you're welcome to try to find something suitable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I don't care much about the notability guidelines here, at least not by chapter and verse. Being one of the all-time best participants in the IMO might not be mentioned as a notability criterion anywhere, but I consider that person notable nonetheless. As I do consider say athletes who broke youth or junior world records, or won some major competition (e.g. Darrel Brown, Yohan Blake, Jacko Gill). --bender235 (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or I start creating biographies for my IOI multi-winning friends. Most of them pass WP:GNG via coverage in their national press(es). Tijfo098 (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a reminder for those not in the know, "Medals are awarded to the highest ranked participants, such that slightly less than half of them receive a medal. Subsequently the cutoffs (minimum score required to receive a gold, silver or bronze medal) are chosen such that the ratio of medals awarded approximates 1:2:3." Gold winner doesn't mean the top dog (in IMO or IOI). Tijfo098 (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But winning three gold medals, with two perfect scores, means something. There's a reason Bureico is No. 4 in the IMO "Hall of Fame". --bender235 (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We do have an article for #1 & #2 there Christian Reiher and Reid Barton, (or guys further down below Ciprian Manolescu or László Lovász) but they are notable for other achievements as well. There is no consensus or guideline in Wikipedia that placement in that chart alone entitles one to a biography here. Wolfgang Burmeister (#3)? Tijfo098 (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the fact that two USA IMO gold winners have pages here, Gabriel Carroll and Reid Barton while their Chinese counterparts (who you can be sure have coverage in the Chinese press) do not, surely indicates systemic bias. This Moldavian guy (Boreico) has coverage on the official site of the Moldavian government, [3], and I'm pretty sure there's more of that in their press. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete need more than the Harvard Crimson coverage for GNG. Racepacket (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Unless your name is Perelman or Tao, mathematicians do not receive plenty of press coverage for their achievements. Try to find me press coverage on Artur Avila, or Ben J. Green, or plenty of other mathematicians whose biographies we keep because of their achievements, not their press coverage. --bender235 (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, except that we aren't evaluating the subject as a mathematician, but as a competitor in a student event. He firmly fails WP:PROF. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we're a evaluating him as a competitor in a student event. As one of the all-time best competitors in that particular event. How in the world does that not meet notability criteria? If we were talking about an athlete with the fourth-strongest record at say the IAAF World Junior Championships in Athletics, we wouldn't even have this Afd. Why should Jacko Gill (youngest WJC gold medallist) be notable, but not Raul Chavez Sarmiento (second youngest bronze and silver medalist)? Why Dexter Lee (only two-time WJC gold medalist), but not Ciprian Manolescu (only three-time IMO gold medalist with perfect papers). Which is to say if Gill, Lee, Iizuka, Gordon, and James meet WP:ATHLETE, why wouldn't Reiher, Barton, Kane, and Boreico? --bender235 (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At some point, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS seems to be relevant. In the past, there was consensus that even really good IMO records do not translate into notability. That is directly relevant to how previous consensus comes to bear on assessing the notability of this particular subject. That there are lower standards for other student competitions (lower than seem to be supported by our own guidelines) is regrettable, but there is very little to do about it. We obviously can't discuss here the individual merits of every high school athlete we happen to have an article on. But it's very likely that some of these should be deleted per our guideline as well. In this case, the bottom line is whether multiple independent secondary sources have substantial coverage of the subject. That just doesn't seem to be true. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you harp on about press coverage? To me, this is not the main criterion here. Question is, whether say the top 10 all-time IMO participants are as notable as the top 10 World Junior Athletics Championship participants, or All-Tournament selections at FIBA World U19 Championships, or All-USA high school football selections? In my opinion they are. And this is not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so stop throwing such instructions at regulars, or read WP:NOTPOLICY. --bender235 (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about high school athletics per se. I do know that prior consensus on student mathematics competitions is very much against you. The guidelines are also against you, and I know what our guideline says. It seems pretty cut-and-dry. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You brought up the WP:ATHLETE guideline for this in your nom, and per WP:ATHLETE some college/high school/junior/youth athletes are notable, particularly if they "have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level", which the IMO clearly is. By the way, there's a difference between the IMO and your local spelling bee competition. Just because they're both "student competition" doesn't mean we should treat them equally, just like we distinguish the Alabama High School Track Meet from the IAAF World Junior Championships, althought technically, they're both "student competitions", too. --bender235 (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in WP:ATHLETE does it say that high school competitions of any kind confer notability. The "major international amateur" competitions are of the Olympic Games and world championship variety, not the "international high school spelling bee" variety. There is no real parallel. For context, you need to read past the nutshell. The circumstances for notability of a high school athlete are very clearly explained. These standards are not met in this case. The basic requirement is, and always has been, that the subject of the article must be the subject of substantial coverage in multiple independent sources. That is non-negotiable. Simply appearing in a list doesn't seem to be adequate. It certainly isn't enough to build an encyclopedia article on. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting tired of this. Could you finally please explain to me why the International Math Olympiad is supposed to be a "high school competition" (and therefore applying the HS athlete section of WP:ATHLETE), instead of a "major international amateur competition"? --bender235 (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The difference, of course, is that there are no high level "adult" competitions in mathematics. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know there aren't. But does that mean just because the IMO has an age limit it qualifies as "non-adult competition"? What about the Fields Medal? Is that a junior prize as well? Seriously, I can only repeat my point: exceptionally succesful IMO participants are notable (per whatever guideline you want). That doesn't include people who just participated or won a medal, but certainly people you won gold at the age of 14, or wrote multiple perfect papers. That is, in my mind, just as notable as someone breaking a youth or junior world record, or winning a gold medal at world championships in any sport. --bender235 (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptionally successful spelling bee participants are generally not considered to be notable either. Exceptional performance in student competitions is not prima facie evidence of notability. As I've already said, the guidelines bear out my point of view: sources are the thing. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even grad students are almost never notable. More so for undergrads. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Emma Watson is an undergrad as well, but of course she meets notability guidelines because her notability draws from her acting career. Boreico isn't listed for the fact that he's a math Ph.D. student, but for the fact that he's one of the all-time best in IMO history. --bender235 (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a specious and irrelevant comparison. Emma Watson isn't notable for her academic achievements. She's a Hollywood star, with press coverage all over the place. If you can find even a fraction of that kind of coverage for the subject of this article, you are welcome to present it. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was merely to say that "undergrad = irrelevant" is a non-argument, because Boreico is not notable for his academic status, but for his IMO results. --bender235 (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable as an academic per WP:PROF, and too little coverage to pass under the general provisions of WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you evaluate the fact that he's No. 4 on the International Mathematical Olympiad all-time list? --bender235 (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF addresses this concern already: "Victories in academic student competitions at the high school and university level as well as other awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1." Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: nom says "The subject's only claim to fame is winning the IMO three times. There has been consensus in the past that this is not on its own considered to make the subject notable." Where and when has this consensus been established? --bender235 (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See deletion discussions for Arthur Rubin, Darij Grinberg, Reid W. Barton. Of these, the ones that were kept were only kept because of additional exceptional circumstances under the WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rubin is notable beyond his IMO results, that leaves Barton and Grinberg. Barton is one of the most successful participants ever, Grinberg not. Barton's article is still there, Grinberg's is not. Where exactly does this contradict my point? --bender235 (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read the arguments made at those AfD's to understand why some were kept and others not. The bottom line is that Barton was discussed in multiple independent sources (books, magazine articles), not (just) because he had an exceptional IMO record. Likewise, Rubin was reckoned to pass WP:PROF#C1 based on a highly cited paper. Being "one of the most successful participants" in either case was not considered a strong reason to keep. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At conferences, it often feels like one can't cross the room without bumping into several IMO/IPhO whatever medallists. I think our precedent on this one is essentially correct. Ray^Talk 01:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If five IMO medals were dime a dozen, this list would have been stuffed full of people, but it isn't. Are their hundreds of mathematicians with IMO medals? Yes. Are their hundreds of mathematicians with five medals, three of them gold, and two with perfect papers? No. So let's keep the exceptional participants. --bender235 (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly a dime a dozen, but not so rare as to be exceptional in the academic world, is my point. Certainly not so exceptional as to merit automatic notability under WP:PROF, which we reserve for, say, professors holding distinguished chairs, with decades of important contributions to their fields. Since WP:PROF doesn't apply, we apply WP:GNG: has an independent source reported on the subject, at length? I see no such press coverage. Ray^Talk 22:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"not so rare as to be exceptional" Boreico is fourth on the all-time list. How much rarer does it get? If the notability guidelines don't recognized top-10 all-time achievements at the IMO as notable, then they are erroneous or at least incomplete and should rightfully be ignored. --bender235 (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rarity alone is not a measure of notability. As the silly old saw goes, we're all unique and special, and above average in our own way. These guys are just a bit smarter than the rest of us, is all. Notability requires, well, that people care, specifically, to the extent of citing them, or writing about them in published sources. Consensus seems to be running against you in this regard. Ray^Talk 22:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you and everyone else to discuss this more generally here. --bender235 (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2011 (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.

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 - I'm snowballing this one. Marasmusine (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Levels on Lego Star Wars

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

WP:GAMEGUIDE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE...an article stating levels on video games and what characters are involved on each level to me seems pretty solidly within the realm of the two linked "what Wikipedia is not" sections. In addition, the article at this point has no references (OR?) and is either massively incomplete or contains factual errors, because I don't see any evidence of how this synchronizes with the games listed at Lego Star Wars (video game series). Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 22:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 22:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All it needs now is a specific guide to how to complete each level to achieve the highest level of uselessness. CycloneGU (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Shows no notability. It is also WP:GAMEGUIDE. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:56, 1 May 2011 (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.

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. SilkTork *^YES! 20:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity in heavy metal

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

Reads like a personal essay, also WP:SYN. There's already an article about the topic of Christian metal. What this article does for the most part of it is listing individual cases, such as "Nick van Dyk, guitarist and songwriter for the band Redemption, is a practicing Catholic and although Redemption is not a religious band, there are undercurrents of spirituality in their music" but band member's individual experiences are completely irrelevant here, and such is also the lead section with a reference to the Beatles who never played heavy metal music. Dragquennom (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Valid subject, just needs to be cleaned-up. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further the nominator started by moving the article and then nominating it. That makes it harder to find for people who only have links to the old article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no original research as it's full of references. It's just essay format and needs to be cleaned-up. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominee has now changed primary reason for deletion. Time to dismiss the nomination. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "time to dismiss the nomination"? Dragquennom (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Is different from Christian metal, though related to it. Needs serious cleanup though.--3family6 (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indifferent: In light of the points brought up by editors, I do not care if the article is deleted or not, and I will support if decision is to delete it.--3family6 (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it may be full of references, but there's nothing new here that couldn't be included in Christian metal. As it stands, this article is half personal essay and half list of trivia, neither of which belong in WP. eldamorie (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional keep (is that allowed?) Delete. The subject is separate from Christian metal, as it deals with the treatment of Christianity in secular metal, not metal which is distinctly Christian. The article in general, especially the lead, does read like an essay, though, and it doesn't seem to be a matter of simple cleanup. I think the subject could support its own article, but not in its current form. It would need to be rewritten - maybe approached from a different perspective? --Fru1tbat (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you're saying in short is: "keep the title but rewrite the article". IMO your rationale is better suited to a "delete" vote. Dragquennom (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Fru1tbat is saying is that the material is good but the writing style is not appropriate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't think you understood him right... quoting what Fru1tbat said: "The article in general...doesn't seem to be a matter of simple cleanup. I think the subject could support its own article, but not in its current form. It would need to be rewritten - maybe approached from a different perspective?" - i.e. he says the subject's good but not the material. Anyway let's just wait until he replies to our "thoughts". Dragquennom (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dragquennom, I think you're probably right. I think the problems are inherent in the current material, not just the writing style. Also, per Azure Shrieker below. Vote amended to delete. --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I regret starting this 'article' in the first place. It was originally a sub-article of a section in the Christian metal article that got out of hand and was moved to cut size down. I already once tagged this to be deleted but the request was quickly rejected. As someone commented in the edit field, this just lacks any 'point' - or we just are not able to make it clear what ever it was and I doubt we will. This is more of a tabloid gossip material than an encyclopedia-worthy, credible article. Even the scholar Moberg commented that sections like these (that emphasize the use of Christianity by certain secular bands) imply fan mentality (typical for "fan-scholarly" writings as he put it), thus unprofessionalism. Christian metal forums are full of these discussions. I think those should stay there for privacy's sake. --Azure Shrieker (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I understand the whole "fan-mentality" thing, but there are bands like Trouble that are definitely associated with Christian metal (the band's label coined the term "white metal"), but are not actually Christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3family6 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think such cases should be discussed in the individual band or musician articles if necessary. Many already are, like Trouble, Santolla, Araya... Now this article just attracts anonymous editors to add more and more obscure bands here with supposed Christian references and members that are debatable at best. Truth is, there are lots of those bands out there, lots of them, so it does not make sense to keep this article just to collect them all in one place. It might make sense to rewrite this and approach from different angle, such as discussing metal's relationship to Christianity, anti-Christian sentiment etc. but even that is already mentioned in the Christian metal article and some other ones.--Azure Shrieker (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are right.--3family6 (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The creator of the article has voted to delete. IMO it could've been be deleted as WP:CSD#G7, i.e., "If requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content to the page was added by its author", if users wouldn't actually add useless individual musicians' cases, which they did, and which are irrelevant, as stated in my rationale. Dragquennom (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't a cohesive article, more like a collection of loosely-related thoughts on a topic. The most that this topic should be is a small section in the Christian metal article. Royal broil 01:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There actually exists "a small section in the Christian metal article", see Christian_metal#Christianity_in_mainstream_metal. Dragquennom (talk) 05:55, 3 May 2011 (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.

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. postdlf (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SIR Stage37

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

It has trivial mentions in Google news results, and I made good faith efforts to find non-trivial, significiant coverage, as per WP:CORPDEPTH. BizBash appears to be an unreliable, principally promotional source. There is no indication of notability besides the mention of it being voted the fifth most anticipated new venue, which is, of course, temporal. The article is written in a promotional fashion, as per WP:SOAP. Mephistophelian. (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: article creator has a conflict of interest (WP:COI), as indicated by his/her username. Mephistophelian (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Few ghits and apparent conflict of interest. Feels like spam. noq (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fundamentally promotional throughout, complete with pre-arranged shout-out to "preferred vender" (sic) (usually for discounts on equipment). 4 of 6 references are BizBash, a site of unknown relationship to its article subjects, split by major city, and likely to be churnalism. Other two are self-published. No evidence this is any more notable than any of the other of probably hundreds of open indoor spaces used for parties and small concerts in New York City. --Closeapple (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant reliable source coverage. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2011 (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.

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. postdlf (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Idiot's Guide to Ballroom Dancing

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

Beyond WP:SCOPE. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 18:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What makes this book notable for inclusion? CycloneGU (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not even sure this is a book review - it just looks like some random facts. Some of this information, if sourced could be added to the ballroom dancing article, but as is, this is not an encyclopedia article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough context, but seems to be a WP:NOT#HOWTO violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The talk page for the article makes it seem like the article creator was attempting to create an article about a book, but this book just isn't notable enough for its own article. Rnb (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, in addition to above, this pretty much comes across as blatant nonsense. Daniel Case (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably a book in "Complete Idiot's Guides" series (this specific book in fact), which come out at the frequency of about 40 books a year, and this article reads like one of the back appendices, which would meet WP:COPYVIO if it was confirmed. Nate • (chatter) 10:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability . -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:27, 29 April 2011 (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.

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. postdlf (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Chadbourne

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

Unreferenced biography. The article weakly claims significance, so I declined an A7 speedy. However, I'm not finding any reliable sources to verify the information in the article, and notability is weak at best. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 18:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. This is an autobiography that doesn't include any reliable third party sources that can assert the subject's notability. Dragquennom (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Keb25 (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:PeteMcGinity I disagreewith the assessment that the article is 'weak at best'. And I've noticed there has been significant deletions to this article recently including the discographies of the artist, and for which I do not see any editors' reasoning for doing so listed in the history of this article. A considerable amount of verifiable information is available in published newspapers, magazines, books and other artist websites referencing Mr. Chadbourne's works and contributions as a musician, writer and discographer (Rome Daily Sentinel, the Houghton Mileau, Scene Magazine, Cleveland Magazine, the book "Bubblegum is the Naked Truth", and other books) which editors could add in instances where needed to improve the article. However, Wikipedia's definition of "verifiable" clearly states that "The word "source" also includes "the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times)". The main hub of the entry has been verified with the proper licensing; I see nothing that "might damage the reputation of living people" (in this case, Mr. Chadbourne) and most of the sources listed are third party, including commercial online media sources such as Soundclick, the MyTV network, LastFM, Sizzle Radio) etc. One must consider that independent artists often use alternative media and will not grant license to mainstream media - whether it is hard copy or internet sourced precisely to remain "alternative and independent". That should not disqualify any article for inclusion simply because a google search doesn't produce immediate results. The article could use some up-dating, but is not in my opinion, irrelevant or insignificant. I noticed that Mr Chadbourne has a best selling single and album on Soundclick just doing a quick search on the site's main page which includes world wide sales. There is an independent article on Soundclick which demonstrates that this is a valid source for information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete McGinty (talk • contribs) 08:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC) — Pete McGinty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment: If "a considerable amount" of verifiable information is available in reliable sources such as those, why not add them to the article? Furthermore, although self-published sources can be used to verify information, they cannot be used to establish notability. I'm glad they exist to verify, but what is there to show that Mark Chadbourne is notable? You've added three links to the article: one self-published, one written by a friend of his, and one potentially reliable and independent source. However, the reliable source shows chart listings for the song on what appears to be a relatively small TV station. Having #1 songs on that chart alone does not meet the criteria at WP:MUSIC. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 15:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Claims for notability in the article are problematic. For example, chart claims appear to be based on Soundclick which isn't a recognized chart. And other claims like "His fixed harpsichord sonata "Area Sets" was lauded as a breakthrough composition by critics around the country." cannot be verfied as I cannot find any actual critical reception for it. -- Whpq (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this guy is clearly not notable, based on the lack of reliable sources about him, but there is a offtrack biker with the same name who might be notable. Bearian (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2011 (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.

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 merge to Football in Tuvalu. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 01:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of football clubs in Tuvalu

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

Contested PROD. An unreferenced list of non-notable clubs. These lists are accepted for other countries because they contain notable clubs. Two of the blue links are places and the other is about an eating club in the United States. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per concerns of WP:BIAS. Nothing says that a list must be made up of items that are bluelinks (or even links at all). The fact that the components of the list might not individually be notable on their own does not indicate that the topic itself is not notable. matt91486 (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the feeble sub-stub Football in Tuvalu. Clearly the topic of football in Tuvalu merits coverage, but I see little point in a separate list which is completely unsourced and composed entirely of redlinks -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Football in Tuvalu; no need for a seperate article. Giant Snowman 12:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep (Look at Category:Lists of association football clubs); this is a seperate article. Add external links. Bogic (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Big Dom 07:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no merge, no redirect ~~Nominator has a burden that is not met to show that the claims that this is not notable are not caused by poor research.~~ Is there a newspaper on Tuvalu? Does it really not talk about what a reliable source says is the most popular sport in the nation? This site reliably states that there are nine teams in a Premier league in a country of 12,000 for whom gaining recognition in soccer comes 2nd after joining the United Nations. WP:N states, "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." There is no requirement that individual items on a list be notable, although it may be that as a content issue some of the teams on this list can be removed.–again, this needs research, not an AfD nomination. Nominator might also look at this Russian to English translation. It is clear based on a Google search that there is interest worldwide in Tuvalu soccer and individual teams there. As per Category:Lists of association football clubs, merging or redirecting to another article disorganizes/disrupts the encyclopedia without a purpose (Wikipedia is paperless) by creating holes in a logical structure. Unscintillating (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Football in Tuvalu. This is not a useful list. Big Dom 07:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - as above. Especially given that Football in Tuvalu has almost no content, I think it would be useful to merge it there. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Football in Tuvalu. Just because we have "List of football clubs in..." for other countries, it doesn't we have to have one for every country, especially when the number of teams is so small. I'd say WP:AVOIDSPLIT could apply here. —BETTIA— ^talk 13:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Football in Tuvalu, with no prejudice against recreating the list when the main article becomes too long. I can understand Unscintillating's point about "creating holes in a logical structure", but I think that the issue is moderated by the fact that List of football clubs in Tuvalu will continue to exist as a redirect (thus, editors who search for the list will be taken to the appropriate page). More importantly, for me, merging this short list devoid of almost any supplemental content into the sub-stub that is Football in Tuvalu would consolidate and better organize Wikipedia's limited content about the topic of association football in Tuvalu. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:48, 5 May 2011 (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.

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 Close Wasn't aware of the turnaround. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1/0 (web comic)

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

Renominating since last AFD closed as no consensus. As I pointed out in the last AFD, the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards do not convey notability per WP:WEB (see r Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Online (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures, Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(web)/Archive_08#Web_Cartoonist.27s_Choice_award and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lackadaisy_(3rd_nomination)), and without it, the comic meets absolutely no other criterion of WP:WEB. Most keep !votes in the last AFD were merely WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ILIKEIT, with no real policy-based discussion either way. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why are you renominating within hours of the closing of the prior AfD? CycloneGU (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close. The previous AFD was initially closed delete at 14:39, 26 April 2011. Closing admin Sandstein was asked at his talk to re-evaluate his determination of consensus and reversed the close to no consensus at 00:42, 28 April 2011. This AFD was opened at 12:16, 28 April 2011, less than 12 hours after the amended closing of the previous AFD. If there is a claim that something was improper about the previous AFD's closure or its subsequent alteration, that's what deletion review is for, not an instantaneous AFD relist. Serpent's Choice (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2011 (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.

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. postdlf (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Permisivism

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

Dic def. Transwiki and tag for appropriate deletion/redirect. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC) UtherSRG (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dictionary definition at best. I am not even sure if this is a real word, although in English it is possible to create almost any word by adding "...ism" to the end of an existing word. For instance "wikipediaism." Jaque Hammer (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't transwiki. The word is unverified and sounds like something someone made up one day. Possibly based on a word from some other language? "Permisivism derived from England language, permissive which means permissive, such as permission. In line with the meaning he said, permisivisme is attitude and the view that allows and permits everything." --MelanieN (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2011 (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.

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 speedy keep. Per WP:SNOW and the fact that the nominator has been blocked indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl and the Puppets

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

I am completing a nomination started by 92.24.111.250. This is not a personal endorsement of his/her view that this article should be deleted. Anthem of joy (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This band have not made any progress in the UK market. Their last EP flopped miserably. The album was due to be released last year, but it has not appeared yet and as far as it can be seen will not appear. The band are now only playing to small crowds. There was a small media interest (heavily stoked by record company PR) but this has now faded away in light of the band's lack of commercial success. They have a very small fanbase. PandP2go (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC) — PandP2go (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- pablo 15:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references include non-trivial coverage in The Times and The Guardian: the WP:GNG (and WP:MUSIC #1) are met. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that no other guidelines in WP: MUSIC have even come close to being met. That is the only one. I'd also like to point out that WP:GNG states that "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity." The articles in The Guardian and The Times were the result of a short term PR push by a record company. I also think it could be argued that one mention in two British national newspapers isn't "significant independent coverage." The entry in the Guardian's "new band of the day" section is particularly irrelevant, hundreds of bands have been covered in that section and few of them have wikipedia articles. PandP2go (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You only need to meet one of the listed criteria. The two articles mentioned were from May 2009 and Mar 2010 so that was not especially short-term interest. If you want more, try this in-depth interview in The Scottish Herald, or search the BBC to see they have been and still are being played extensively and regularly across the network. They clearly meet notability requirements. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hmm...it seems something of a coincidence that the (original) nominator is 'PandP2go' and their only edits are this attempt to delete this article (on 'PandP'). Lack of commercial success is irrelevent, as is the claimed size of their fanbase. Most of the cited coverage spans several months, and in addition to those already in the article there's The List ([4] [5]), The Herald ([6], [7]), MusicNews.com ([8]), Daily Record ([9], [10], [11], [12]), Evening Times ([13]), Daily Star ([14]), and this from The Scottish Sun stating that the band won the 'Best New Scottish Band or Solo Artist' award at the Scottish Variety Awards in 2010. An obvious keep.--Michig (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a coincidence. My name is Peter Andrew Pargo, i.e. P. And. P2go (the 2 standing for an R) Anyway my username is irrelevant to this debate. How can you claim it's an "obvious keep" when only one condition under WP:MUSIC is (very shakily) met? PandP2go (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is a coincidence. There's nothing remotely shaky about satisfying WP:MUSIC. This coverage also means that the band easily satisfies WP:GNG. --Michig (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a lot of sources like Pearl and the Puppets: I performed barefoot before Diana Vickers - stv.tv, [15], [16]. Also, it seems they performed in mainstage in Rockness 2010: [17]. Nimuaq (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You people are pathetic. You see the picture of a good looking girl and you think "oh we need to keep that". If it was an ugly girl you'd be desperate to delete it. I don't want to be part of an encyclopaedia where the editors only condition for notability is their own disgusting and shallow sexuality. You attempt to rationalise this by citing WP guidelines, but I know the truth. You've a consensus based on your shared shallow and base desires. You are animals! PandP2go (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As well as the various media articles cited above, they have a biographical article on Allmusic. AllyD (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject seems adequately notable. --Anthem of joy (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User:PandP2go has been blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. I think this can safely be closed as a snow keep.--Michig (talk) 10:15, 30 April 2011 (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.

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 as blatant hoax. Moondyne (talk) 08:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Duchy of Canberra

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

Google search turns up nothing remotely related to a "Grand Duchy of Canberra". C.Fred (talk · contribs) and I independently searched for the alleged source presented in the article and found nothing. I had tagged this with {{db-hoax}} but a claim made by the article creator on the talk page led me to believe that some additional eyes are needed on this one. Even if this is not a complete hoax, it still fails WP:N. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy/strong delete. I'm still leaning toward CSD G3, hoax on this one. Too much doesn't check out—no hits on the duchy, the alleged current grand duke, the book cited as a source, or the book's publisher. Even if it's not a hoax, it's unclear what constitutes the current Grand Duchy, other than an apparently unrecognized title. —C.Fred (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. At the relevant period what is now Canberra was part of the British crown colony of New South Wales- see History of Canberra. Grand Duchies do not exist in Britain or under the British crown (dukedoms are different) and there was certainly never one created in Australia, least of all Canberra. --AJHingston (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Cannot find any information if this person even existed. (including the supposed current 'Grand Duchy of Canberra). Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 20:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 04:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant hoax. Don't wait, delete now. The-Pope (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2011 (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.

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. postdlf (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ithaca Shakespeare Company

AfDs for this article:

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

non notable local theater company WuhWuzDat 07:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All I could find was trival mentions, including fundraising drives. Nothing to establish notablity outside of the local community. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 06:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This nomination was not entered onto the AFD log, nor was the article tagged. I have done this now, and will relist below - accordingly, this is now scheduled to close on or after May 5. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any assertion of notability beyond the local community. Kansan (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local theatre company, with no significant coverage (barely even any local coverage). --MelanieN (talk) 02:12, 5 May 2011 (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.

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 Result was Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising or promotion (WP:CSD#G11) by Athaenara (talk · contribs) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graj + Gustavsen

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

Marketing / branding company with no particular indications of notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. –BuickCentury Driver 13:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.

Speedy delete: unambiguous advertising to the point of borderline patent nonsense:

specializing in brand positioning, developing strategic brand platforms, licensing and brand management
provides strategic solutions in building brands
founded ... after years of experience in the retail industry.
The Strategic Alignment Process involves taking research and the company's understanding of the brand essence and defining practical steps to align creative strategies and business objectives for effective brand management.
G+G's StageSetting℠ process brings a brand's vision for the future to life. Stakeholders experience and evaluate all consumer facing brand elements before resources are invested in roll out.
The Simon Graj Blogosphere provides insights into the branding industry and thought provoking interviews with top executives....

Like you'd expect an article written by PR pros to be, it is superficially "referenced" to one line quotations from business personnel on unrelated subjects. None of those stories have this business as even a minor subject, though. Obvious snow jobs like this would appear to indicate clearly that the editors had one eye out on Wikipedia notability guidelines when putting together the article. Because they aren't really notable, they had to find one line quotes from business personnel in real sources. It seems safe to assume that's the best they can do. But when the article is as blatantly promotional and obviously slanted as this one is, notability isn't even an issue. So tagging. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:22, 28 April 2011 (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.

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Scholze

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

The subject fails WP:PROF. His only claim to fame is three gold medals in the International Mathematical Olympiad. IMO wins have never been considered sufficient evidence of notability in themselves. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As the article creator recently noted on Talk:Peter Scholze, the subject is the 2011 Clay Research Fellow. This seems to be more significant, but I am not certain if brings the article to passing WP:PROF. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be confused with the Clay Research Award. See [18].--RDBury (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close (essentially keep, but without any prejudice toward relisting): the article is only 4 days old, and deserves a chance to make it case better. Especially in light of the recent information that has come to light I strongly oppose deleting at this time. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't get a lot of Google Scholar hits for the subject (with very few citations each), although I don't want to claim great accuracy in my GS search, since the name "Scholze" is very common. In light of the difficulty in sifting through the results, I refined the search to the past six years (and given that the subject's area is the Langland's program and Shimura varieties, I searched for related terms). A typical result was this search [19]. I was only able to turn up three papers, only one of which seems to have any citations. MathSciNet doesn't list any publications of the subject (he does have an MR number though: 890936). It seems to me that, although the Clay Institute seems to feel that the subject shows promise as a potential young researcher, he does not yet have enough of a research record to meet the requirements set forth at WP:PROF. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only a PhD student, not even close to passing WP:PROF, no published papers, only three preprints and only a few citations . Student level awards and fellowships are explicitly excluded in WP:PROF from indicating academic notability. The Clay fellowships are meant to support finishing graduate students, based on the promise of future accomplishments, not on being notable already. Nsk92 (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. That means I can't create biographies for my IOI winning friends... Tijfo098 (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a reminder for those not in the know, "Medals are awarded to the highest ranked participants, such that slightly less than half of them receive a medal. Subsequently the cutoffs (minimum score required to receive a gold, silver or bronze medal) are chosen such that the ratio of medals awarded approximates 1:2:3." Gold winner doesn't mean the top dog (in IMO or IOI). Tijfo098 (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I added a source but I don't think it's enough for WP:GNG (the only relevant criterion since WP:PROF seems far out of reach), and I couldn't find much more. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I guess I think that the Clay Research Fellowship is a significant award by a notable foundation. Also, as someone in the subject, I can say that his work is quite well-regarded (though still in the publishing process, which is usually a couple years behind the times) and that he is presumably graduating some time soon. If anything, it is a bit soon to confirm under wikipedia regulations that the article should exist because his results are so recent that searching for citations is a bit premature. Also, note that he has been on the Wikipedia:Requested articles/Mathematics since April 2008 [20]. RobHar (talk) 07:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are actually making a "delete" argument: the fact that his results are too new to have been cited (or even published) is exactly what makes him non-notable under Wikipedia notability standards and the creation of a WP article about him rather premature. When there is significant published coverage of his work, then there will be something to talk about. As it is, he is a PhD student with no publications and no citability of his work - the very opposite of what WP:ACADEMIC requires. Regarding Clay fellowship: it is a fellowship for beginning scientists, showing great promise but who have not yet become notable academics. The fellowship's official description states[21]: "The primary selection criteria for the Fellowship are the exceptional quality of the candidate's research and the candidate's promise to become a mathematical leader. Most recent appointees were finishing graduate students at the time of their selection, though other mathematicians under age thirty occasionally have been appointed." By contrast, academic notability as defined in WP:PROF requires evidence that someone has already made significant impact in a his/her academic field and has become a leader there. Nsk92 (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I realize that my "If anything" clause is a delete argument. My keep argument is stated in the first sentence of my comment. WP:PROF does not require someone to have already made significant impact (as far as I understand it), it requires any one of 9 criteria, of which I am saying I believe the Clay Research Fellowship satisfies number 2. Also, being that the Clay Research Fellowship is one person chosen in the entire world, every fellow has indeed made significant contributions already (which may not be verifiable via citations in papers, but can be verified by the reception of the Fellowship). This is just my argument, so I could be wrong. RobHar (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I guess I also think it's a bit silly to delete a well-sourced article of someone who is very likely to be manifestly deserving of his own article sometime soon. This may not be in a guideline, but it's how I feel. RobHar (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Delete Weak, because the Clay, due to its exclusivity, blurs the line between early career fellowships like the Sloan and other, more general prizes. But it is a prize given very very early. Ray^Talk 22:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete - Too early. If he's going to be notable, he'll do something more and we'll want to wriate an article on him then. For now, he's not notable. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2011 (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.

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 due to the unsalvageable content of the current article. If someone wants to write a proper referenced article with this title, I don't believe a DRV will be necessary. - filelake shoe 15:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unemployment in Pakistan

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

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - probably a notable topic, but this is just a purely opinionated screed and there is nothing really to salvage. Kansan (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This looks like a soapbox piece. CycloneGU (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Kansan's comments above. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kansan. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough coverage in reliable sources. Many books are written solely on this topic. The article is poorly written and in its current status constitutes OR, so it needs improvement, not deletion. --Reference Desker (talk) 05:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article, in its present state, is a huge stinking pile of POV OR. There is nothing there to salvage. If an article can't be improved, it should be deleted. A complete rewrite is possible, but if no one is willing to step up to that task, the article that exists cannot be allowed to remain. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - soapbox essay, completely unreferenced. Bob talk 09:25, 2 May 2011 (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.

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, and for future reference, if the sole editor of an article removes the PROD template without explanation that does not constitute the PROD being "denied", but rather vandalism. - filelake shoe 15:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Education system in pakistan

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

Wikipedia is not a soap box. Also, this is basically an attack page aimed at the Pakistan education system. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - why couldn't this have been speedied? -- role^player 13:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Because there isn't an appropriate criterion, and because the PROD was denied. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.

Delete. We have, or should have, an article on education in Pakistan. I don't see anything here that could be used to improve it. This might be a page that exists only to disparage its subject, and as such subject to speedy deletion under that criterion, assuming that the educational system of Pakistan is an entity subject to that criterion's protection. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An opinion piece, not an encyclopedia article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is clearly an opinion piece: I think it meets the criteria for speedy delete. TehGrauniad (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Opinion of author; even the title is POVy...--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 20:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are quite narrow criteria for speedy. There weren't any that fitted, so the attempts to get it speedied were declined. (Nonsense is one of the tightest definitions - very few things tagged nonsense actually fit the criteria.) Opinion, original research, yes. Proddable, or AfDable but not speedy. Attack page? Very possibly - but that doesn't seem to apply to systems in the definition given for G10. Peridon (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV, insulting, badly written, bad essay. There is no useful information here or possibility to repair this article. Wikiweek (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per SOAP, OR, fuck this fucking essay. --Reference Desker (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/ His English is much more sure-footed than my Urdu will ever be. They must be doing something right over there. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 06:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, might be worth closing per WP:SNOW. Bob talk 23:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even wrong, it is refuted by verifable facts in Education in Pakistan and Nursing in Pakistan. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2011 (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.

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. Consensus is that sources exist that are not currently in the article which establish notability. (non-admin closure) Monty ₈₄₅ 00:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doodle.com

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

Does not appear to meet inclusion criteria. Free web program/website... Even if RS could be found, there would not be enough content to write a worthwhile article. Declined speedy; apparently it is popular in Germany. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 10:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just look? [22] Marcus Qwertyus 16:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, did you? A dead link and a link to the URL. The third devotes two short sentences to the website on a full-page article. It's not even the full quote, the second half of the quote is about another website. There is nothing that comes close to "significant coverage". ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 16:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links count toward notability. Marcus Qwertyus 23:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ADVERT. CycloneGU (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What a superb lack of assuming good faith. Marcus Qwertyus 23:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - 7 books right here.[23]. Please check before rampaging around destroying perfectly notable articles. Marcus Qwertyus 23:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Willing to keep an open mind here (use my talk page) but "website of the week" isn't really encyclopedic material. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Marcus. Clearly notable and verifiable. Steven Walling 00:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (the same reasons) --Mmh (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are also a lot of reviews in German (e.g. [24], [25], [26] etc.) and other languages. --Mmh (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google books search turns up a decent amount of discussion of it in addition to the links provided by the previous !voters. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2011 (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.

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lyle Roebuck

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

lack of sources confirming notability Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator: PROD removed. Most Ghits are social media, others merely confirm he was an award finalist (which does not establish notability). Does not appear to pass either WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE and as mentioned even though he has been nominated for an award this doesn't make him notable, even if is a prestigious one. Moreover, also fails WP:ACADEMIC so it seems open and shut.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find reliable sources that discuss this person in depth. He doesn't meet our notability guidelines as either an author or an academic. Cullen328 (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Cullen. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Roebuck seems to have spent plenty of energy creating and maintaining this page, and the expectation that the page cite WP:RS to show that his works have "been the subject...of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" has been pointed out for plenty of time. Yet there has still been no convincing effort to bring those articles or reviews. If the article is recreated with those multiple indep. articles and reviews cited, I will support its retention against any opponents; meanwhile I !vote delete. Wareh (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article seems to be not much more than a recitation of awards that the subject didn't win (but claims he was a "finalist" for). Article claims he is a writer, but he seems to be a high-school teacher at Elgin Academy. Moreover, I can't actually find anything he's written. For example, WorldCat does not seem to be aware of 'Ovid's Heroides with Notes and Vocabulary' (so that's probably "self published") and WoS shows no scholarly contributions. Article was created by now-blocked-WP:SPA Uofcboi and has been heavily serviced by WP:SPA Ltroebuck and several anons like this one, all of which Geolocate shows to be in the same locality as Roebuck. Consequently, it's likely that this is little more than a vanity or fan page. Uncontroversial delete. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: When I came upon this article, I was unsure if Mr. Roebuck was notable enough so I decided to completely research his career before I made up my mind. I have therefore sourced all the information I could find, deleted all unsourced assertions and adjusted any claims according to sources found (per WP:BLP). Even after all that research and adding six references, I am adding my comment for deletion. In my opinion Mr. Roebuck does not fulfill the Notability parameters of WP:AUTHOR. One reason is that at least one of his works of fiction, The Crab, has been submitted multiple times to various contests:

1) Finalist in the 2007 H.E. Francis Award (University of Alabama/Huntsville),

2) Winning the 2010 James Knudsen Contest(University of New Orleans) and

3) Finalist in the William Van Dyke Short Story Prize (Ruminate Magazine).

I would like to add, however, that his version of Ovid's Heroides I is still being sold by the Classical Association of New England. Shearonink (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, when I saw you adding references (thanks for the further research!) I figured perhaps you were going to argue to keep. But indeed, these are web pages that name him, no more - there is no actual discussion of him, so with all these web links we have still not found him the "subject of" (WP:AUTHOR) even one review in an unreliable source, not to mention the multiple reliable articles needed. P.S. On the status of CANE publications, see what I say at Talk:Lyle Roebuck; I am familiar with these publications (use them myself but would not confuse such student-aid pamphlets for an ordinary scholarly publication). Wareh (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2011 (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.

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final (Php)

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

Besides the fact that it's a bad title (should be "final (PHP)")I don't think that the final keyword has enough relevance for its own article. We don't have articles about other visibility keywords like "public", "protected" or "private", and furthermore, if at all, the article should include all finals of other programming languages, too, because they don't differ. However, there are more than enough articles, e.g. Class (computer programming), Information hiding or Inheritance (object-oriented programming) (and probably more that I missed), which may deal with this topic in a way that's more than satisfying for interested readers. The Evil IP address (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge into Inheritance (object-oriented programming). If we have to have an article on final, which I think is unnecessary, it needs to be broader in scope. PHP's implementation is nothing special. – anna 10:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. – anna 11:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I disagree with the nom in that I think we could justify articles on language keywords, and certainly Other Stuff Doesn't Exist would apply - the fact we haven't yet written articles that ought to be there means little. That said though, I'd delete this one. final can perhaps be justified, and it can justify a narrower and more specific article than Inheritance (object-oriented programming) (that's an enormously broad topic). However PHP's particular flavour of final doesn't appear to be anything specific or notable beyond the general concept. Any article on PHP's final alone would either have no content beyond a hatnote, or it would fail WP:NOTAGUIDE. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I seriously doubt there's enough scope to have language-agnostic articles on keywords like public, private, etc, let alone one article for every standard uninteresting implementation of each keyword (which is what this is). These should be covered in the OO articles -- most of them, I suspect, would rate note more than a sentence or two's mention. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2011 (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.

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alenka Hubacek

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

fails WP:NTENNIS. no major tournaments and has not reached minimum 25K prizemoney standard. LibStar (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I don't think it fails WP:NTENNIS since she competed in the main draw in 2008 Australian Open – Women's Doubles. Nimuaq (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The criteria for WP:NTENNIS was the subject of discussion here which is further modified as a result. However, it still doesn't state anything about wild cards and I'm not sure if the "competed in the main draw" statement includes wild cards or it is added to refer to the qualifying for the tournament (via rank or competing in the qualifying). Thus my vote is Weak. Nimuaq (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If one main draw doubles appearance in her local major -- no doubt supported by a generous wildcard and in which she and her team-mate got hammered -- is the most that can be said for her notability, I don't think she warrants an article regardless of the technicalities of WP:NTENNIS. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as she passes tennis notablity as per Nimuaq 194.66.216.40 (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nimuaq said weak keep, why do you say strong? LibStar (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as she meets WP:NTENNIS and WP:HOTTIE. 202.124.88.24 (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— 202.124.88.24 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. its a dynamic ip. you have no clue how many edits I've mad. Focus on the content, not the contributor. 203.171.196.186 (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC) — 203.171.196.186 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while she meets the letter of WP:NTENNIS, I'm not sure that a single wildcard doubles appearance, where she was soundly defeated by an unseeded player, really meets the spirit of that guideline. As good a time as any to WP:IAR. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Non-notable tennis player. Keb25 (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy, but ensure admins are on hand to undelete if required in the future (ie she gets better, wins something etc). The-Pope (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Lankiveil that this is a case to ignore all rules. WP:NTENNIS is a guideline by which we use to gauge notability and should be used with discretion and consideration of the circumstances. Somebody qualified into the main draw either through ranking or winning their way in through the qualifiers has exhibited notability. Being granted a wild card isn't the same thing. -- Whpq (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2011 (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.

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Krnčević

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

fails WP:ATHLETE. has not played in the highest professional league in Australia A League. his European stints are not top tier either. LibStar (talk) 06:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. –BuickCentury Driver 13:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes it fails WP:ATH but it is a well-sourced article and arguments can be made from articles in major newspapers that he might pass the GNG. There's a lot of low-hanging fruit to hit with football biographies. I don't think this needs to be one of them. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keb25 (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:NFOOTBALL (hasn't played in a fully-pro league) and WP:GNG (what limited coverage there is simply run-of-the-mill sports reports, nothing "significant"). Giant Snowman 00:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Week Delete - Fails the "not fit for purpose" WP:NFOOTBALL, however the one theage.com.au report is coverage (and not IMO WP:ROUTINE as claimed by GiantSnowman), but on it's own is not "significant", if other coverage turns up then willing to reconsider. Mtking (talk) 06:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSPORTS#Association football and WP:GNG. Four sentences saying basically "son of famous father about to make debut in semi-pro league, manager says he has promise and has to start somewhere" can't by any stretch of the imagination be considered anything other than routine sports reporting. Recreate if the FourFourTwo gossip-column stuff comes to anything and he plays in the A-League. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 12:34, 5 May 2011 (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.

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Scouts (band)

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:BAND. whilst in the last AfD Mess+Noise is an indepth article not sure how reliable a site it is. it describes itself as "alternative music community website" rather than a proper online magazine? this was previously quoted as an additional source but it is a mere less than 1 line mention. I fail to see significant coverage, awards or coverage in mainstream press. LibStar (talk) 06:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per outcome of initial AFD. Nominator cites various deficiencies which call for article improvement, but doesn't really make a case for deletion or refute the arguments from the prior AFD or cite any changed circumstances prompting deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

um my case for deletion is lack of significant indepth coverage. The first AfD did not demonstrate multiple indepth sources. At best 2 sources were found, and one is clearly a 1 line mention. LibStar (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 04:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep have managed to find numerous sources, some of which confirm that the band had a release in the US (in addition to their Australian releases). The references confirm that the band toured North America and Europe. All of which is sufficent to satisfy WP:BAND. Dan arndt (talk) 07:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

whilst not discounting your sources as per WP:SOURCEACCESS, i can't see most of the sources you've added. could you provide a way of accessing them? LibStar (talk) 07:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

all references are properly linked, as I had to use Wayback Machine it may take some time for the references to be accessed - you just need to be patient. Dan arndt (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per original AfD and Dan's recent work. I had no trouble accessing links to the additional refs.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2011 (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.

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biglight

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

Non-notable band lacking GHtis and GNEWS of substance. Article author claims band was the subject of a 30 or longer program, but fails to provide proof of that and nothing is available that supports claim on the program's website. Fails WP:MUSIC. ttonyb (talk) 05:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this article will come back later as it mentions about an upcoming album, but this is premature at the moment. The article only has sources from social network sites, and there are no news-related publications about this band (I have checked this, and all the sources I've found are irrelevant to the subject) Also, none of their singles or albums has hit any charts yet. Minima © (talk) 05:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfies criteria 11 and 12 in WP:BAND. Chart position has nothing to do with radio airplay and single rotation. The CBC Bandwidth website keeps no record of radio airplay in summer 2009. RockerDad101 (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Unfortunately, just saying something happened does not make it true and all claims must be supported by reliable sources. If 11 and 12 were satisfied, then it should be should be somewhere in the web if it were as important as you indicate. ttonyb (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable band. Keb25 (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2011 (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.

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 redirect to West Hollywood, California. Dubiously sourced with a strong suspicion of a promotional conflict of interest. Consensus is that this at best warrants a mention in the context of the wider area. ~ mazca ^talk 12:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Historic Boystown

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

Article is primarily WP:PROMO for the efforts of one Larry Block to get a certain designation for an area of West Hollywood. Article created and all substantial edits are by User:Blockpartyweho -- Block Party in West Hollywood is a store owned by Larry Block, as explained in the earlier revisions of this page. Nat Gertler (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect with West Hollywood, appears to be somewhat notable (but not so much under the moniker "Historic Boystown") riffic (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to West Hollywood. First off, the article is factually incorrect. Los Angeles, California is in fact a separate city from West Hollywood, California, unlike the opening of the article states. The history of the now-iconic gay neighborhood of West Hollywood is synonymous with the history of this article subject. It's basically the same topic. It would be like having a new article about the gay history of The Castro, San Francisco when the existing article already contains that history.--Oakshade (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Redirect. The designation "Historic Boystown" hasn't even been officially recognized by West Hollywood at this time - it's still just a proposal - and even if it ultimately is recognized, the information properly belongs in the West Hollywood article, with a redirect from this name. --MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2011 (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.

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 no consensus to delete. Though partially derailed by justifiable objections to the mass nomination, it does appear that this particular article is better-sourced than some. Taken on its own merits (rather than en masse with other Playmate articles) there's a vague consensus that this is sufficiently sourceable to conform with policies - although further efforts to merge or redirect it are not excluded. ~ mazca ^talk 12:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Rovero

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - did you actually do a quick google search? [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] Clearly a notable individual with coverage from many news sources ranging from USA Today, Las Vegas Sun, and others, and this is just a quick sampling. BelloWello (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2001. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Virtually all of the non-Playmate coverage for the subject is tabloidery for her association with Paris Hilton, which doesn't demonstrate genuinely independent notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect A borderline case. Probably notable, but not quite enough coverage to make a merge with List of Playboy d Playmates of 2001 inapproprate. Epbr123 (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No playmatehood exception to GNG or WP:BASIC. Google News search reveal plenty of news coverage to satisfy BASIC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is about the definition of why we have, and need, NOT TABLOID. The coverage is about totally insignificant things, and thus fails GNG. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I use tabbed browsing. Your characterization of my action is failed. Surely, some few articles will end up being kept. But do you thing the balance of deletions/non-deletions among my nominations will be different from that of an usual AfD day? --Damiens.rf 14:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, you used WP:Twinkle, an automated tool, for the mass AfD nominations. [36][37][38] Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Tabbed browsing is what accounts for "100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute". --Damiens.rf 15:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main thing is that WP:BEFORE was clearly ignored and the result is a huge mess that is left for others here to clean up. Carrite (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're honestly care about it, WP:BEFORE was not ignored. It may be the case that this or that article ultimately comes out not to be deleted, but it will not be more likely to happen in my nominations than in it is in general. Let's focus on the deletion discussion instead of on the deletion nominator, for the benefit of the project. --Damiens.rf 19:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I don't think she's notable by virtue of being a Playmate alone, but there seems to be just about enough coverage of her in reliable sources to justify an article. Robofish (talk) 23:11, 4 May 2011 (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.

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. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 01:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sherrie Rose

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article doesn't even mention playmate status, how can that be the reason for deletion. Article indicates extensive acting career, google news hits establish notability. Monty ₈₄₅ 04:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of notable sources. BelloWello (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While most of her acting roles are rather minor, there are enough nontrivial roles to meet the requirements of WP:ENT. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:ENT and WP:GNG. More notable as an actress than a Playmate. Epbr123 (talk) 08:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no indication that the topic meets WP:NACTOR -- "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2011 (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.

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. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 01:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Rickter

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Modeling + TV appearances + Google news hits, seems to be notable. Monty ₈₄₅ 04:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable figure with mentions in the MSNBC [39] and the New York Times [40] among others. BelloWello (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The MSNBC article is an sports article about a notable athlete's with the girls. She is mentioned on passage The article is not about her. Thatś inherited notability. About NYT, I don't have a password so I can't judge. --Damiens.rf 05:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her TV work might be barely adequate to meet WP:ENT, and together with her Playmate coverage is enough to justify an independent article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, maybe a recurring character on Baywatch is enough to guaranteer you a Wikipedia article. --Damiens.rf 15:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1995. Her television appearances aren't quite enough to meet WP:ENT in my opinion, and nearly all her Google News hits are about her marriage to Mike Piazza. Epbr123 (talk) 08:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HW.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:22, 5 May 2011 (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.

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 redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1977. not quite sure about the NA relist but the consensus is pretty clear - the opposition to deletion based on BEFORE overlooks the fact that contributors have confirmed a fruitless search for sources and a specific ntoability guide is cited in the nom and not refuted. Therefore the article does not pass the GNG and gets deleted. I am also redirecting as this is clearly a plausible search term. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virve Reid

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1977. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Dekkappai (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect No significant coverage found. Epbr123 (talk) 08:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant coverage, and no indication that she's known for anything other than Playboy. (And if this !vote seems very generic, its because so is the article.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 01:47, 6 May 2011 (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.

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 redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1983. not sure about the NA relist but the consensus is clear and this article doesn't meet N or any subordinate guidelines ot preserve it and the argument under BEFORE is essentially irrelevant to the notability guidelines. Redirect after deletion as plausible search term to the list Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carina Persson

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1983. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Dekkappai (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect No significant coverage found. Epbr123 (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no indication that the topic meets WP:NACTOR -- "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 01:50, 6 May 2011 (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.

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. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 01:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jodi Ann Paterson

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Between Miss Teen Oregon, the TV appearances, and the playboy modeling, subject appears to be notable. Monty ₈₄₅ 04:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There appears to be just enough coverage that isn't purely Playboy-related to justify a discrete article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per awards mentioned by Monty. It's like nominator did not check the articles before mass-nomination of Playboy articles. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I got to the article because it was linked to from Dude, Where's My Car; apparently she was in it. Here is her iMDb; if we're still using that website as a reliable source. Abeg92contribs 05:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Playing Super Hot Giant Alien in Dude, Where's My Car does not make you notable. --Damiens.rf 11:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Playboy+a teen beauty contest+playmate related video ≠ notability. No indication of any coverage beyond making Playboy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nom appears to be trolling. --212.137.70.194 (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable for reasons described above.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to be enough coverage to pass WP:BIO, though article obviously needs work. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficiently notable.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 11:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as playmate of the year. The rest of the article consists of improperly verified trivia, but that's another matter. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Playmate of the Year is not, in itself, a reason to keep. While it may be argued that most Playmates of the Year end up becoming notable for their media appearances, it's actually theses appearances, that grant notability, and the not Playboy Corporation's decision. --Damiens.rf 20:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - As far as I can make out the conclusion of the discussion, that was about "Playmate", not about "Playmate of the year." Drmies (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:N. Can someone upload a pic? Thanks in advance. Turqoise127 00:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- [41]. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2011 (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.

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. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 01:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taya Parker

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

Non-notable model had some non-outstanding jobs. Damiens.rf 03:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Being a model for multiple major publications seems, seems more notable then a one off appearance. Monty ₈₄₅ 04:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears likely to meet the GNG through cobination of reality TV and Penthouse coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Previous Passes WP:PORNBIO criteria 4 for being featured on Rock of Love. Jobs don't need to be "outstanding" just notable. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2011 (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.

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 redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1987. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 01:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kymberly Paige

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1987. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Dekkappai (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect No significant coverage found. Epbr123 (talk) 08:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a likely search term. Lugnuts (talk) 09:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a potential search term. There is no need to limit the user experience for our readers just because. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2011 (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.

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. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 01:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Susie Owens

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article as it stands is inadequate, and her modeling alone, almost entirely Playboy-related, surely wouldn't support an independent article. But she was a prominent enough figure in the comics industry about twenty years ago, merchandising herself through comics written/drawn by very notable industry figures [42], selling trading cards [43], and working as a recognizable model for various notable illustrators [44][45]. I think there's enough out there to justify an independent article, admitting that the sourcing needs improvement (and probably print searching). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that plain simple self promotion? Is there coverage / critical analysis about these merchandising she created about herself? --Damiens.rf 20:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No playmatehood exception to WP:BASIC or GNG. Consistent coverage by Dallas Morning News (revealed by Google News search) over many years adds up to satisfy as significant. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HW.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:24, 5 May 2011 (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.

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. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 01:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hiromi Oshima

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Acting career appears to also be notable. Article just needs better references, not deletion. Monty₈₄₅ 04:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What acting career? She has four reported roles in the seven years since her Playmate selection, two as an uncredited (and unverified) extra, two unbilled trivial/generic roles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as written above, it must be merged, not deleted User:Cavarrone User talk:Cavarrone 22:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What is with these blanked nominations? This is a clearly notable individual as the first Japanese to become a playmate and it is also well sourced. A few examples of sourcing: [46] [47] [48], and that doesn't include those in Japanese. BelloWello (talk) 04:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The first is an article about playmates attending Playboy's founder birthday party. The second is about how one of Playboy Racing Team's sponsors had four playmates at its booth on a trade show. The third is a Spanish three paragraphs article about how hot she is. Nothing of this is unexpected or outstanding, and happens for any girl that strips to Playboy. This is the kind of playmatehood coverage I predicted on the nomination. --Damiens.rf 05:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree with Damiens' analysis of the cited articles. Two of them are just mentions in laundry lists, with no significant biographical content, or other relevant content beyond the well-established and generic point that she was Miss ------ 2004. The third is not coverage at all, but a bit of promotional fluff on an aggregation page with a large glamour photo and negligible factual content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2004. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Dekkappai (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Monty, BelloWello, and Morbidthoughts' assessment of similar noms.SPNic (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Granted, most of these should be redirected, but this one is just barely over the line to meet inclusion requirements. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2004. No significant coverage found. Epbr123 (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or r/d as per Monty, et al. --212.137.70.194 (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2011 (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.

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 speedy delete. Likely hoax, especially in view of the author's recent track record. Favonian (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Going Catholic (film)

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

phantom future thing with no credible assertion of notability, but not in one of the magic WP:CSD#A7 categories Closeapple (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: own nomination. See WP:FILM, WP:CRYSTAL, etc. Pretty close to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Contains a "director" who isn't sure he wants people to know his last name yet, and such status reports as "script was begining to commence on April 27, 2011". --Closeapple (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Closeapple (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure if the alleged director isn't sure if he wants people to know his surname, or is just emulating a director who is too cool for a surname, but anyhoo. No sources provided. fewer found. Nothing found for a search on the title, actors, director or scriptwriter. As it stands, the film would fail WP:CRYSTAL anyway, but no sources at all means failing WP:N and WP:RS. I would throw in WP:MADEUP as well, to be honest. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:30, 28 April 2011 (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.

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. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 01:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lillian Müller

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has a number of TV and movie credits, so is notable above & beyond Playboy. Tabercil (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a second thought, her tv credits may indeed cross the line for Wikipedia's notability. --Damiens.rf 12:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Movie and TV credits alone probably satisfy WP:ENT, and together with her Playmate coverage justify an independent article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Delete, one of oh so many and barely remembered nevermind notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.190.81 (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nominator didn't seem to look at the article before nominating a person with multiple acting credits that passes WP:ENT and criteria 4 of WP:PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Morbidthoughts.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2011 (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.

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. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Moore (model)

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I think there's just enough coverage out there to justify an independent article, but it's a very close call and a redirect absent article improvement is certainly justifiable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - mainstream media seems to like to cover her due to her playmate status. No exception to "playmatehood" in GNG or WP:BASIC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'KEEP The accomplishments of Barbara Moore meet the requirements of WP:BASIC and surpass the requirements of WP:ANYBIO. Nominators assertion that "Playmate of the Month" is not an award is false, and his "strategic commercial decision" analysis is irrevelant. Glenn Francis (talk) 00:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any arguments to bring to this discussion, or just declarations of truth? --Damiens.rf 09:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, enough to meet GNG.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE so far, no keep vote provided any evidence of notability. Just plain declarations. If we were a democracy, this AfD would be easy to close. --Damiens.rf 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated this mass of articles with checkoing for notability. You nominated people who weren't even playmates as not notable because they were just playmates. If we were a Greek democracy, watch out for the Ostracon with your name on it.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-playmates? I called playmate any models that stripped for playboy, and used a playboy list article as my guideline. It comes out that some of them are actually "'cyber girl'", "playboy's net mate" and other even more obscure classifications. These one are the most non-notable of them all.

But of course, pointing unrated mistakes by is easier that actually discussing the merits of this article. --Damiens.rf 22:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet still more difficult than the effort it took you to nominate them all. I've only ever read Playboy for the articles and even I know the basic distinction of whether there is a staple in the model.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:04, 6 May 2011 (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.

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. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 02:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Monaco

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2005. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Dekkappai (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Due to the high standards of Playboy, those chosen as "Playmates" become famous. Those chosen as "Playmates of the Year" become Very Famous, a fame that lasts for a very long time thus "quite" notable. Similar to beauty pageants, winners are chosen because they have many other qualities in addition to beauty, particularly their ability to positively represent whoever chose them. A "Playmate of the Year" has a big responsibility to represent one of the most famous Brands in the World - "Playboy." To decide that a "Playmate of the Year" is not notable enough to be in Wikipedia is inexcusable. The explanation of the nominator is seriously flawed. He states that "Playmates of the Year" should be deleted because their position/title/recognition is not called an "Award." Well, an Award by any other name is still an Award, whether it's called a Crown, Laurel, Honor, Trophy, Medal, Oscar, Grammy, Emmy, Pennant, or a Miss, it’s all the same thing – Recognition for something outstanding from everyone else. This passes both criteria 1 & 2 of WP:ANYBIO. The nominator’s statement that the choosing and recognizing of the best Playmate of the year is a strategic commercial decision to better commercialize its products is ridiculous if not laughable. In the United States, almost everything is the result of a commercial decision to, hopefully, better commericialize their products. Fed Ex, Coca-Cola, McDonald's - those names and products are all the result of "strategic commercial decisions" made to better commercialize it products - does that mean they should be deleted also? Glenn Francis (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You say "[the nominator] states that "Playmates of the Year" should be deleted because their position/title/recognition is not called an "Award."" ---- You have an unpaired understanding of this nomination. This was never supported here. --Damiens.rf 09:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Playmate of the Year is a well known award satisfying criteria 1 of PORNBIO, strategic decision or not. No playmatehood exception in GNG or WP:BASIC on coverage revealed through Google News search. The newspapers cover her. I'm not going to question why. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This many nominations at once seems a bit disruptive, I'm afraid. :( coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Playmate of the year is 10x more notable than the crappy porn bios that pass PORNBIO all the time for baloney awwards. The nom is part of a mass nom, so no doubt the nominator didn't even look at the individual articles.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We all know that other crap exists, but this should never be taken seriously as a reason for keeping. Your statement about my nominations is a non-sequitur. --Damiens.rf 23:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Other crap exists is certainly a valid AfD argument which wins the day every day, when used correctly. As Wikipedia:Other stuff exists says, "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." My point is that actresses with less notability often get kept in AfD as sufficiently notable, so let's be careful before we draw the line higher for former playmates. As for my non-sequitur, i was abhorred to see your mass nomination without care about the individual articles.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Milo. Nom is trolling, as evidenced by the pitiable rejoinders throughout this thread. State your reasons for nom (even if you're mass nominating, and clearly on the wind up) and STFU. --212.137.70.194 (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2011 (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.

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. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 03:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candy Loving

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep short answer: yeah it does. Long answer: The subject has received additional coverage besides the one issue. Google News turns up a nice result.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When I search for her on gnews I got a lot of articles about Halloween and its "candy-loving monsters". Can you find good coverage about the girl?
- Your short answer did not survive wide community inquiry. --Damiens.rf 05:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay 1 "Playboy Picks Candy Loving", Herald-Journal - May 4, 1979; 2 "Centerfold Full of Loving" Gadsden Times - Dec 5, 1978; 3 "To Help a Marriage, Pose for a Playboy Centerfold" Times Daily - Jan 2, 1979; 4 "Playboy's 25th Anniversary" The Nevada Daily Mail - May 6, 1979; 5 "Playmate Beats Miss America in Bucks" The Bulletin - May 9, 1980; 6 Rabbit Test: 50 Attend Playboy Audition" The Miami News - Apr 27, 1983. That should do for a start.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Isn't that the usual playmatehood coverage? --Damiens.rf 15:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - So what? even if it is, it still is enough to surpass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        So what it's trivial coverage. --Damiens.rf 16:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I disagree. The coverage is not trivial but is comprehensive and quite widespread.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Nonetheless it's trivial because it's still texts about how cute she is, how nice it is to be a playmate... the usual playmatehood text that would be written for any person in her position. --Damiens.rf 09:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Incorrect Articles 3 and 5 provide much more detail than that and most certainly is not "the usual playmatehood text" as you say. Your comments are putting more weight on the argument than the facts show.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Article 3 is definitively the usual playmatehood text and 5 mentions her tangentially. --Damiens.rf 16:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:WABBITSEASON we disagree.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1979. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. None of the cited coverage is outside the context of her Playmate designation, and much of it amounts to trivial or passing mentions. Not exactly BLP1E, but similar principles should apply unless more durable coverage can be specified. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Paul McDonald. There is no "playmatehood" exception in GNG or WP:BASIC. Nominator is applying a much stricter interpretation of trivia. Read note 6 of BASIC that defines trivia to confirm. He is confusing the depth of coverage requirement with the importance of the topic. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as proposed above. Merge is a variant on the keep !vote, but if this were to be kept and not redirected I hope that additional sources can be found to expand upon. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul McDonald. I've pretty much removed myself from these playmate AfDs, because some editors are hell-bent on getting the identical content copied into year-by-year articles. We have thousands of actor bios that get by on less, though.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We all know that other crap abound wikipedia, but this should never be taken as a valid AfD argument. --Damiens.rf 23:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - and people should read articles before nominating them for deletion. in any event, its often a valid argument, as WP:OSE says, "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." my point is that actresses with less notability often get kept in AfD as sufficiently notable, so let's be careful before we draw the line higher for former playmates.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PMcD. Timewasting, trolling nom. --212.137.70.194 (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree. WP:CFB encountered something called the West incident a few years back when an enthusiastic deletionist was able to delete one head coach article and that snowballed into massive nominations, many of which were deleted and now have been 100% restored. Mass deletions are quite disruptive. If the article is truly not notable, that's one thing--but when it would lead to a bunch of deletions and then restorations once people catch up to what's happening, that's a problem.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2011 (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.

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 Nomination withdrawn as subject may pass on grounds of being member of 2 notable bands.. LibStar (talk) 07:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monika Fikerle

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:MUSICBIO. I'm not convinced by last AfD. gnews [49] merely confirms her role in bands, but lacking indepth coverage of her as an individual. only the SMH article may be considered indepth. she has won no major awards (or been nominated), none of her albums have charted highly and simply being a member of notable bands is in itself does not add notability for an individual article. LibStar (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article does appear to meet criteria 6 of WP:Music, in that she is/has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles (being Sea Scouts, Love of Diagrams & Baseball). The criteria clearly states that a musician may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria, which it appears it does. Dan arndt (talk) 05:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes you are right. but I think Sea Scouts has questionable notability and have nominated it. I guess this AfD will hinge on that AfD. LibStar (talk) 06:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As previously argued this could be taken as evidence that AfD is being used as cleanup, not something that I am particularly keen on. Whilst you may have nominated Sea Scouts for AfD, Fikerle is/was a member of two other notable bands.Dan arndt (talk) 08:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 07:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:MUSIC via membership in multiple notable bands. Nothing has changed materially since first AFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, am satisfied, as per my earlier point, that the article addresses WP:Music. Dan arndt (talk) 07:45, 29 April 2011 (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.

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. postdlf (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liv Lindeland

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being the first Playboy playmate with pubic hair is not an achievement. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has appeared in films, and there are a lot of references in google books. This person appears to actually be (or have been) notable. Article needs improvement with additional references, not deletion. Monty₈₄₅ 03:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The books I see are list where she's one of the entries. Casts lists, adult model lists, and some books entirely about playboy. Will we find some non-trivial mention? --Damiens.rf 04:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - [50] seems to be going in to some depth on here, which was the one I focused on, but the excerpt is too short to really tell how far it goes in covering her. But a number of the references appear to be more then mere lists, some aren't even principally about playboy. Monty ₈₄₅ 04:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I think that her film credits, though probably not sufficient to meet WP:ENT standing alone, plus the (un)coverage she received for "mainstreaming" what had previously been thought of as hard-core pornographic, justify an independent article. The sourcing for the latter has been so far grossly inadequate, falling well below BLP standards, but I believe it can be turned up (as indicated by the book source cited by Monty845). And interim redirect to the Playmate lisr would be OK, but not preferred. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google News search reveals that she spent 3 years on Laugh-In in addition to her other acting credits. This satisfies criteria 4 of WP:PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficiently notable to overcome spam nomination.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- It has some relevance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weams (talk • contribs) 13:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2011 (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.

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. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 03:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Kozar

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 02:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news results spanning more then a decade, while some of the later results are weaker for individual notability, combined with modeling career, notability seems established. Monty₈₄₅ 03:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- She's constantly mentioned trivially in sports related articles that are actually about her husband, quarterback Tim Couch. --Damiens.rf 04:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - She gets mentioned enough that it looks alot like notability. Many of the references are more then trivial, though they are also not substantial coverage of her personally. I still think there is enough between those and the modeling career to establish notability. Monty ₈₄₅ 04:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Mentions of her are trivial at best, and not related to her directly -- notability is not inherited. If anyone can show me 3 reliable sources which discuss her in depth I will happily change my opinion, but i'm not seeing it. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 04:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of Google News hits. These mass nominations are ridiculous, mentioned on a regular basis. There are a number of in depth coverage (and I am not going ot provide examples due to the high volume of frivolous nominations today...) BelloWello (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's try to avoid such attacks. They are the real disruption bearers. --Damiens.rf 05:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You claim there are a number of in depth articles. Can you please show just the one? --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 05:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly a weak keep. Obviously, most of the coverage mentions her Playboy modeling, but not all of it is directly derived from that. In addition to her modeling for the magazine, a planned event to have her throw the first pitch in an Akron Aeros game caused a fan outcry[51][52] that garnered some media coverage. In 2001, she joined[53] The Price is Right, where she was one of the permanent models for about a year. She was the 2002 St. Pauli Girl [54][55]. And quite a few words have been spent on her relationships with Cade McNown and Tim Couch (although those references would only provide citations for a "personal life" section, rather than have a bearing on notabiity). I think there's enough there to just barely sneak across the line, but could probably argue this one either way. Serpent's Choice (talk)
Keep, borderline weak keep. While her credits aren't enough to meet WP:ENT, there seems to be enough non_playmate coverage, given her film and TV work and her celebrity marriage, to justify an independent article, although barely so. Otherwise redirect to the Playmate list article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Playmate of the Year is a well known award satisfying criteria 1 of PORNBIO, strategic decision or not. No playmatehood exception in GNG or WP:BASIC on coverage revealed through Google News search. The newspapers cover her. I'm not going to question why. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:55, 4 May 2011 (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.

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. postdlf (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sharry Konopski

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 02:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep News coverage 10 years after being centerfold, seems clearly notable. Article needs improvement with additional references, not deletion. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs significant improvement, but I believe the subject received enough coverage over her injuries and attempts to continue to model despite paralysis to justify an independent article. Weirdly, she's also in the news this week as a peacock rancher (or whatever). [56] [57] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easily passes GNG and WP:BASIC with her news coverage. Coverage about her playmatehood is not disqualified from the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage about her playmatehood is not automatically disqualified, but is usually trivial, as explained in WP:BASIC. Have you seen some non-trivial coverage about her that you would share with us?

Of course, like in others AfDs about non-notable playmates, you may chose not to provide evidence for what you state and simply expect a gullible closing admin to take your word for that. --Damiens.rf 20:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I expect the other people to look at that google news search and easily determine that [58][59][60][61] plus the bizarre peacock articles are extensive coverage. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Morbidthoughts.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 00:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:55, 4 May 2011 (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.

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dougie Hamilton

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dougie Hamilton

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sources provided do not provide significant coverage of this junior hockey player. A search for other sources doesn't come up with much, therefore fails WP:N. Auseplot (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet NHOCKEY, as his league awards are academic not for on-ice performance. A google search found an article from NHL.com, and one from his local newspaper regarding his academic awards. Not enough reliable, non-trivial coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Canada Hky (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Pparazorback (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Since he looks to be a first round NHL draft pick in next 60 days, and there is coverage out there about him that arguably meets GNG, deletion at this juncture doesn't seem useful.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Monty ₈₄₅ 02:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in depth coverage from reliable sources. BelloWello (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No in depth coverage from sources and fails wp:nhockey. -DJSasso (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is probably going to be a first round NHL Draft Pick (Draft happens in less than 60 days) and there is coverage about him that arguably does meet GNG. Cheers! Feedintm (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet NHOCKEY, and no in depth coverage from sources. Nitalake (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2011 (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.

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 redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1993. The consensus is clear and the sources have been considered. Redirect after deletion as a plausible search term Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Echo Johnson

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 02:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1993. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All Google news results for her name and the word "Playmate" are sites with paywalls. But she apparently got some mention in some of them.

Austin American-Statesman : Heat-seeking missile looks just like Mike

Pay-Per-View - Austin American-Statesman - NewsBank - Jun 20, 1998

... Center on Aug 23 Since Echo Johnson's parents named her after reflected ... her a pretty good life The Austinbased Playboy Playmate just got back from a ...

Dream Focus 09:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant coverage, and no indication that she's known for anything other than Playboy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - taking your clothes of in playboy is not a notable thing to report. No objection to the list redirect though - Off2riorob (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Albuquerque and Austin paper coverage cited in the article. I looked bypassed the paywall using infotrac. Playmatehood coverage is not disqualified from the GNG. Importance of the content is not the same as depth of coverage when designating trivial under that basis. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep In this particular case, the articles in the Austin American-Statesman and, perhaps to a lesser extent, the Albuquerque Tribune appear to amount to significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Together with her appearances in Playboy, notability seems has been established. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 10:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't this just local paper doing the usual trivia? --Damiens.rf 10:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suppose they're just human-interest pieces, but when combined with the Playboy appearances and any interview subsequent to her modeling career (e.g. this), I think notability is established, if only barely. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 11:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Upon further reflection, I've struck my previous comments. The sources here are better than those in most of the other Playmate AfDs, but I'm not convinced that they're enough to satisfy WP:BIO. I won't lose any sleep if this article is kept – since becoming a Playmate, Johnson can no longer be described as a low-profile individual – but I think I'd prefer a redirect as described by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2011 (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.

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tylyn John

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 02:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Substantive news coverage for her work after being a playmate. Having been a playmate is not an automatic disqualification to otherwise notable people. Article needs improvement with additional references, not deletion. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1992. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Blanket posting of the same reply suggests you haven't really examined the articles individually for exceptions.—RJH (talk)
  - Not actually. These articles read all the same. --Damiens.rf 01:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep USA Today and the New York Post mention her for her illness. Others cover her as the leader of one of Playboy's sports team. All but one of the Google news results is hidden behind a paywall, so I can't read the entire articles, but the titles and summaries that appear in the search seem to indicate she is notable. Dream Focus 09:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: mention of an illness and leadership of a Playboy sports team is not just trivial coverage, it is vapidly trivial coverage. Speculation as to what might be behind paywalls is not evidence of significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG and offers no substantive articulation of any specialised notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DreamFocus.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dreamfocus asked us to keep the article because there's trivial coverage about her some papers and maybe non-trivial coverage on articles he/she can't read (behind a paywall), what's not much defensible. --Damiens.rf 20:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did you read the summaries for yourself before deciding to sass me? [62] They mention she working to bring awareness to a disease, plus cover her for other things as well. Dream Focus 01:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per the articles from the New York Post, Los Angeles Times, and Toronto Star articles from the Google News search. It goes beyond trivial coverage especially the New York post and her fight against scleroderma. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being a Playboy centerfold may not guarantee notability; but it does not guarantee non-notability either. However in this case, Tylyn John's having been a centerfold and having well-publicised scleroderma has made her notable.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2011 (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.

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 redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2003. redirect after deletion seems a valid search term. the keep arguments didn't advance policy based reasons to overlook the lack of sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Markéta Jánská

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 02:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm going to disagree that there is a "playmatehood" exception in coverage satisfying the GNG but the subject does not have enough coverage even without this "playmatehood" exception. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2003. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'KEEP The accomplishments of Marketa Janska meet the requirements of WP:BASIC and the requirements of WP:ANYBIO. Nominators assertion that "Playmate of the Month" is not an award is false, and his "strategic commercial decision" analysis is irrevelant. Glenn Francis (talk) 00:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any arguments to bring to this discussion, or just declarations of truth? --Damiens.rf 09:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People who make automated mass deletion nominations should not be impugning the motives of others. Carrite (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2011 (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.

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. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Teri Harrison

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 02:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Information in article already makes notability clear, just needs references which are available on google news. Article needs improvement with additional references, not deletion. Monty₈₄₅ 03:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All the article says about her is that (1) She took her cloths off for Playboy in many occasions; (2) She was a Barker's Beauty on The Price Is Right and (3) She iswas married to a notable drummer. I disagree this qualifies her under the notabiltiy guideline. --Damiens.rf 03:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The notability guidelines require coverage by multiple independent and reliable sources, which she has, and she was on a daily tv program. Seems clear notability to me. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if being one of The Price is Right models gives you notability, then you would have a point. But isn't this too small of a role?
    
    I fully agree with you in that the notability guidelines require coverage by multiple independent and reliable sources. But does she had that? All references in her article come from Playboy (except one that is a link to a youtube video (???) ). Where are those independent sources you mention? --Damiens.rf 06:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think her non-Playmate activities/coverage justify an independent article, although there's clearly a need for sourcing improvement here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2011 (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.

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 redirect to Robert Curthose. Delete and then redirect but no objections to someone making this a dab if they prefer Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry of Normandy

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

An article had been created by myself and then doubted and deleted. See the discussion on Talk:Robert Curthose#Henry of Normandy, which leads to the conclusion that such a prince never existed.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & rewrite on the basis of the talk p. mentioned. The most impt authority for the period, Orderic Vitalis, is the source, and there seems to be no academic source refuting him, only the unsourced statement of a popular writer who gives a different birth order. DGG ( talk ) 07:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - there is no need to have a separate listing for the controversy about whether he existed or not. His likely non-existence should be covered at Robert Curthose's page, which is sufficient coverage. And Orderic isn't the most important source for the period, just one of several, and the only one that mentions him. David's biography of Curthose does not mention him, and in fact clearly states that Sibyl only had once child (and sources this to Orderic and Wace) so while David is somewhat older, he's pretty much the only biographer besides Lack. Thompson's biography in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (here but needs UK library access or subscription) doesn't mention a son Henry, although she does mention illegitimate sons Richard and William as well as one attested illegitimate daughter and one possible illegitimate daughter. (The statements there about children from Sibyl are "Then in Lent 1103 Duchess Sibyl died, probably as a result of poor nursing after the birth of her son, William Clito, on 25 October 1102." The only other statement there about other children is "Robert's two illegitimate sons Richard and William met early deaths, Richard in the New Forest in 1100, and William in the Holy Land in the 1110s. Nothing is known of his daughter, the wife of Elias de St Saëns. Robert probably had a second illegitimate daughter, since Henry I made provision for his niece Sibyl of Falaise."). The proper place any mention of him is in Robert's article, along with the note that modern historians have not found the evidence of his existence convincing. I've also acquired Weir's book since the previous talk page, and she does not give any sources whatsover for her statements - and if Lack is disqualified by being a popular writer, then Weir should likewise, as she is also a popular writer. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A further bit. David, does specifically impeach Orderic, as he states "Soon after the birth of her [Sibyl] only child, William Clito, she died at Rouen, and was buried..." (Charles David Robert Curthose Harvard University Press 1920 p. 146) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the bit below from Oderic, I now think the best thing is to delete this article, redirect the title to Robert's article, and insert a footnote stating that Weir's named this person, but does not give a source, and the other sources do not agree there was such a person, thus covering us against recreation. Thanks for finding that Deacon, Im' still trying to find my copy of Orderic that's somewhere in a box... somewhere. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced keeping this as a redirect is even wise. Surely Henry of Normandy should redirect to Henry I of England? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Henry I?!Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 06:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say Henry II, but definitely not this nonentity (or irrelevancy). Agricolae (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through Aird on gbooks, Sibyl and Robert had one son, and Robert had two known bastards. Alison Weir is not a reliable source. Maybe she made a mistake, or is confused. I seriously doubt she was conducting original research on the matter. Definite delete. If a reliable source comes up mentioning Henry, then we can recreate the article. I'll try to check out the OV reference in fmg.ac, but that isn't a reliable source either. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Ealdgyth. If the only thing known is that he might, or might not, have existed, then a separate article is not justified. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I suspected fmg.ac does not give an accurate account of Orderic Vitalis. Contrary to fmg.ac's assertion, Orderic does name the son born to Sibylla and Robert the year after their marriage:

In September Duke Robert arrived in Normandy and, after being received by his people, went with his wife Sibyl to Mont Saint-Michel in peril of the sea. There he gave thanks to God for his safe return from his long pilgrimage, and afterwards consummated his marriage with the daughter of Geoffrey of Conversano. Next year she bore him a son, and Archbishop William baptized the child, giving him his own name. Duke Robert recovered his duchy without opposition, and held it for about eight years in name only ... (OV, X.17)

Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Monty ₈₄₅ 02:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Agricolae (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or maybe Merge, but definitely not Keep. Judging the evidence independently, this looks like nothing but a mistake, someone who never existed. It looks to me like someone has accidentally created a new child by combining a confused and ambiguous reference to the birth of Clito with a similar reference to the death of illegitimate son Richard. That being siad, even if such a child of Curthose did exist, he would abysmally fail WP:NOTABILITY, receiving no reliable coverage in the depth necessary to qualify. Looking at the existing page, there is nothing of value that one would want to Merge, and any comment on Curthose's page should be limited to a footnote, and contain text of an entirely different nature. Finally, the name Henry of Normandy probably shouldn't redirect to Curthose anyhow, as the name would be much more commonly used to refer to Henry II of England prior to succession, so I don't see there being any benefit to a merge. I go with the original nomination and with Ealdgyth's revised opinion (delete and add footnote to Curthose) - it would be best to simply uncreate the page. Agricolae (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it'd be Henry I rather than Henry II? Henry's agnatic line--his dynasty--is usually styled "Of Normandy", whereas Henry II's is "Of Anjou". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely not. Henry I of England later became Duke of Normandy. Henry II of Normandy later became King of England. Agricolae (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've misunderstood. Henry I's male ancestors were a family called "of Normandy" (William the Conqueror, etc); Henry II's were called "of Anjou". Henry I is hence "Henry of Normandy", Henry II "Henry of Anjou". Whether or not one was Duke of Normandy before being King of England isn't of much comparative relevance. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't misunderstood. I just don't agree that patrilineal ancestry is the sole, or even best, standard for naming people. Whether one was from Normandy is absolutely relevant, even if one's father came from elsewhere. This reflects actual usage of long standing: Henry II is commonly called Henry of Normandy prior to his succession - search Google Scholar or Google Books for "Henry of Normandy" and the matches are mostly to the future Henry II, not Henry I. I think, though, we are in agreement that Henry of Normandy most certainly should not redirect to Robert Curthose? Agricolae (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree much of this, but I never said patrilineal ancestry is the sole, or even best, standard for naming people. I will add, though, that "Henry of Normandy" for Henry II might come across as simply factually incorrect on the basis of 12th-century French naming practices. Usually I'd be more interested in what is perceived by experts to be factually correct than what the out-of-date and trashy books on gbooks say. That's just me though ... Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For all the calling of those Google matches out-of-date and trashy and factually incorrect, you are bringing nothing to the table but personal opinion. However you characterize the Google Books matches (and, oddly, ignore the Google Scholar matches) where are your corresponding scholarly references to Henry I being "of Normandy" in preference to Henry II? You may not have said that patronymic ancestry is the best criterion, but you seem to be taking it for granted at the expense of actual past usage. In discussions of the reign of Stephen and the marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine, references to 'Henry of Normandy, later Henry II of England' are all over the place. At the time of his marriage and at the time of his success in the war with Stephen, Henry was 'of Normandy'. He has been called this repeatedly and I don't see why we should ignore it just because Henry II's father came from Anjou and Henry I's father came from Normandy. This as all a distraction, though, from the question of whether the current Henry of Normandy page should exist or be merged or deleted. We can always make Henry of Normandy a disambiguation page. We don't want to have a pointless merge simply because we can't agree to which Henry it should really redirect. Agricolae (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find this really puzzling. You have spend some time making an argument to me in which I have no interest in. I merely pointed out that Henry I is the one with "of Normandy" as a kindred name. This is just a fact. If Henry II is also called "Henry of Normandy" in some modern texts ... great. Congratulations to him. As you realise in those texts Henry I is already dead so it's not a means of disambiguating H II from H I, though were it ever used as such anyone who knows much about the period would guess it referred to H I (my point). Incidentally, usually when I say references are out of date or trashy, they are. I regard my own personal opinion as having weight, as I'm sure others do ... but it's up to each individual I guess. Absolutely sick of being told on these threads to respect printed works because they got published in whatever century by whatever amateur enthusiast and are now visible to the undiscerning masses on gbooks. Irrelevant! A work has authority if and only if it is reliable, not because it merely exists! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may have no interest in the argument, yet you keep arguing - puzzle that for a while. You have pointed out that based on your own criteria, "surely" Henry of Normandy should refer to Henry I rather than Henry II. I have pointed you to hundreds of occurrences where Henry II is called Henry of Normandy. I too know a scholarly contemporary source when I see one. I too would have thought that anyone who knows anything of the period would hold my view, an opinion which I too think has weight ... but which also has all of those inconvenient citations to back it up, from scholars like Crouch, Keats-Rohan, Barrow, Freeman, King, Painter, Archer ... amateur enthusiasts and hacks all, I'm sure. But you just dismiss these all out of hand in favor of your personal preference, in part because Henry I was dead already (as you so succinctly say, Irrelevant!) but mainly just because. Obviously we are not going to agree here on who "Henry of Normandy" 'should' refer to. We are also not going to agree on the status of "of Normandy" as a so-called "kindred name" of scholarly standing. A disambiguation page would seem to be in order. Agricolae (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all the hits on you're referring to on gbooks are for Duke 'Henry of Normandy' and such like anyway, and those don't support what you are saying. But point taken, no more 'arguing'. Should be a dab page. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:34, 3 May 2011 (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.

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 redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1980#April. This takes into account the consensus that the subject is not notable, and also the fact that the person is indeed covered at the target list and that a redirect is therefore appropriate. Sandstein 06:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Glazowski

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 02:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1980. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2011 (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.

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. postdlf (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Baker

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 02:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Barely enough non-Playmate notability to justify an independent article. Just barely enough. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which non-playmate notability do you see? I believe the line on the article about her interview with Martin Amis says it all. --Damiens.rf 04:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of coverage to pass GNG. [63] Nominator is confusing trivial as in depth of coverage with importance of the subject. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- A link to a google news search, while easy to copy and paste, does not establishes notability. Trivial coverage is excluded from GNG. Trivial tv roles plus a trivial modeling work (i.e.: being a playmate) does not sums up to a notable biography. Do you have specific examples of coverage about her? Multiple examples. I know it's harder to defy your argument when you just state their existence instead of showing them. But I expect the closing admin to avoid such purely assertive votes. This is not a democratic decision. --Damiens.rf 15:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Other people are free to look through those news hits and determine for themselves whether they think that's enough coverage. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're purposefully and repeatedly denying to provide the evidence you claim is easy to find. --Damiens.rf 20:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:WABBITSEASON - It's clear you have a flawed view of the GNG and BASIC along with the burden of proof to demonstrate notability. Just because I make you go through an extra step in order to view the totality of the coverage doesn't mean you can't go and look at them individually. It's clear that you think the subject itself is all fluff anyway, but other people are free to judge for themselves. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm only asking you to backup your assertions. Plenty of gnews hits is not the same as plenty of coverage. At least the kind of coverage that is relevant to our policies on notability. It would be easier for you to provide concrete links to some of this coverage than to argue and try to guess what I think and what I don't think here. And of course, it's easier to expect others will also be lazy and take Google News hits as a sign of relevant coverage. --Damiens.rf 20:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Isn't that the beauty? I'm not trying to convince you. I just have to convince others. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You like to take it as a vote, instead of as a discussion. --Damiens.rf 20:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Naw, it's still a discussion. You're just at the wrong end of it currently. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per ever-reliable Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: HW is not lax with his keeps, so I would not disagree with him here.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 00:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2011 (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.

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. postdlf (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Arthur

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 02:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The murder of her husband by a crazed fan received national press at the time, and that coverage justifies an independent article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mrs. Ohio, Playmate of the Month and a newsworthy widow story.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was unsure about this murder story. I believe my rationale was that, considering that playmates are not notable by their playmatehood, this murdering would be a WP:ONEEVENT. It's weird to write a bio for some person just because her job caused (via a lunatic) her husband's death. But if this is common on Wikipedia, I would concede on withdrawing this one. --Damiens.rf 04:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I tend to agree that there is enough coverage of her considering the murder. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:09, 4 May 2011 (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.

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Anderson

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 02:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. TV credits etc, even if not strictly unrelated to Playboy, justify an independent article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where do you see those tv credits? According to ibdb, she appeared in one episode of Fear Factor, 5 Playboy videos, and she was once on Howard Stern to promote it her magazine. --Damiens.rf 04:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Notable in my opinion. Jccort (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, help us by elaborating on that. Being notable in your opinion is not an inclusion criteria. --Damiens.rf 01:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - But they're stating it strongly -- giving tremendous weight to their argument by assertion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per hullaballoo.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Television appearances listed in the article prove she is notable. Dream Focus 08:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They are too trivial. See above. --Damiens.rf 17:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication of "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", so fails WP:NACTOR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage [64] passing GNG. There's no playmatehood exception to GNG and that kind of coverage is not disqualified from notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A link to a google news search, while easy to copy and paste, does not establishes notability. Trivial coverage is excluded from GNG. Trivial tv roles plus a trivial modeling work (i.e.: being a playmate) does not sums up to a notable biography. Do you have specific examples of coverage about her? Multiple examples. I know it's harder to defy your argument when you just state their existence instead of showing them. But I expect the closing admin to avoid such purely assertive votes. This is not a democratic decision. --Damiens.rf 15:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The multiple reliable sources revealed in the Google news search I linked satisfies the floor of WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". However if you want individual links to substantial coverage articles, [65][66] (go to page 1b) [67]. It's clear that you haven't done any due dilligence under WP:BEFORE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - None of this seems to amount to "significant coverage" (would be more accurately characterised as 'insubstantial puffery') -- and can be summarised to 'she's a playmate and a basketballer's girlfriend'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Like I've repeated many times before, you are confusing depth of coverage with importance of the topic. I know you think it's all fluff. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I'm contrasting superficial coverage, which is what the coverage you link to exhibits, with "'Significant coverage' [which] means that sources address the subject directly in detail" -- which is what WP:Notability requires. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry dude, I was directing my previous response thinking you were the nominator. Your point still does not explain my quote from BASIC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        (i) As I have already indicated, I don't consider the sources you list to exhibit "depth of coverage". (ii) A whole bunch of sources stating variations of 'she's a playmate' are hardly exhibiting "intellectually independen[ce] of each other", so cannot be combined to demonstrate notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 20:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        That's where we differ from each other. You think the coverage is fluff because the content is fluff. I think the coverage is enough even if the subject may be fluff. The only intellectual independence (which is not mentioned in WP:GNG) I require is that the articles are not the same articles (reprints) or quotes one another. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Your quote from WP:BASIC conveniently kept out the passage:
        trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. (...) Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work
        — Wikipedia, Basic criteria, WP:BASIC
        
        This follow right after the passage you quoted, but you removed it, loosing context. --Damiens.rf 20:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        and I keep stating you're confusing depth of coverage with importance of the subject. Hence, WP:WABBITSEASON. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per HW. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:09, 4 May 2011 (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.

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 redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1996#September. This takes into account the consensus that the subject is not notable, and also the fact that the person is indeed covered in the target list and that a redirect is therefore appropriate. Sandstein 06:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Allan

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 02:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1996. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant coverage, and no indication that she's known for anything other than Playboy. (And if this !vote seems very generic, its because so is the article.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2011 (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.

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 redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1993#November. This takes into account the consensus that the subject is not notable, and also the fact that the person is indeed covered in the target list and that a redirect is therefore appropriate. Sandstein 06:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Julianna Young

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 02:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1993. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2011 (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.

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. — Scientizzle 14:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lynda Wiesmeier

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 02:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Movie credits probably satisfy WP:ENT and would justify an independent article when combined with Playmate-related coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At first, I was also of this impression. She appears in at least one somewhat popular movie of the time, Michael J. Fox's Teen Wolf. But it came out that was just one of those small imperceptible roles. She is listed as an actress on 14 titles on imdb, and her role is all of them is minor (with the likely exception of playboy direct-to-videos like R.S.V.P. and Shape-Up for Sensational Sex). in the movies pages I followed, you can only find her name by clicking full credits.

Does playing school girl on Private School or girl in shower on Sexy Shorts makes her pass WP:ENT? --Damiens.rf 04:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Her filmography is verified by a review of her Google Books hits. Should probably also mention something about her lawsuit about their playboy footage being used in another pornography video.[68]. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If HW says she's notable (and his standards are not lax), there's no need for me to say more.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 00:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the combination of being a Playboy centerfold, her film career, and lawsuit make her notable. Note that whilst being a Playboy centerfold does not guarantee notability, it does not guarantee non-notability either.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2011 (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.

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. postdlf (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandee Westgate

AfDs for this article:

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 02:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please not that the same bio has been previously deleted on the same grounds for 4 times. WP:CSD_G4 applies here. --Damiens.rf 02:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Clearly not a G4, because the article now includes assertions of recent awards/nominations that some users argue show notability under WP:PORNBIO. The article raises multiple issues that can't be handled well in the context in which it's been nominated, and it would be better if the nomination was withdrawn and raised again, separately, when the current run has been disposed of, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Between her work as a frequent film critic and many awards through her modeling/starring there is little question she is a notable figure. BelloWello (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? --Damiens.rf 12:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per "Has received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years." So, Keep per the above. Lugnuts (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Two AVN nominations (one of them a collective nomination) and a Favorite Breasts F.A.M.E nomination. If this is enough for WP:PORNBIO, I'll have to concede. --Damiens.rf 13:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has multiple porn nominations. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per PORNBIO. Obvious nominator did not read the article WP:BEFORE nominating considering subject is not a playmate. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per incorrect nom. She was never a playmate to being with, so this nomination appears to be in error (part of a mass nom).--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 00:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2011 (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.

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The (Immortal) Shadow Alchemist

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

Contested PROD. Article is clearly not a real-world subject, and zero indication is given as to which fictional universe the subject belongs. Without this context, it is difficult to properly judge notability, but the text and some Google-ing leave little doubt that the subject is non-notable in its own right. lifebaka++ 01:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google, Google Books and Google Scholar searches did not produce reliable sources for notability or verifiability of the subject.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very strange. Nothing about this subject is even verifiable, as far as I can tell. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:08, 6 May 2011 (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.

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Walcott

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable model has done a lot of minor works. At first glance, the article seem serious, but most of the content is sourced to unreliable sources like her official website, her myspace page, her twitter account, her blog... But event when we disregard this, her achievements are not outstanding, to say the least. Damiens.rf 01:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to have enough non-Playmate coverage to justify an independent article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Try to clean the article from all information backed solely by unreliable sources, and see what happens. --Damiens.rf 04:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough coverage found on Google News. Epbr123 (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see her being mentioned tangentially in articles about her husband/boyfriend Adam Archuleta and some stories about a she being stalked on myspace (by and Adam Archuleta fan, if I understand it correctly). Can we work this out as enough coverage? Maybe. --Damiens.rf 12:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Hullaballoo wolfowitz.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reliable coverage revealed by Google News search. Her achievements need not be "outstanding", they just need to be noted by reliable sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per HW, and Morbidthoughts, sufficiently notable for inclusion.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:15, 4 May 2011 (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.

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsey Vuolo

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 01:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2001. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2001. Has some coverage, but not enough to require an individual article. Epbr123 (talk) 10:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has coverage about her as the first marketed or admitted Jewish playmate. [69][70][71][72][73][74] beyond the trivial playmate appearances. Passes the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes GNG as demonstrated by Morbidthoughts's research.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 00:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2011 (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.

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 per consensus and as an unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jovanna Vitiello

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 01:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a Playboy Playmate -- just a model who appeared in a handful of nonnotable Playboy videos, and whose roles in other notable films are clearly insignificant. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No results in Google News, if she somehow is notable, it won't be much work for someone to get the article where it is now again. BelloWello (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2011 (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.

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. — Scientizzle 14:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Tweed

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable, even if your sister was an actually notable playmate. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 01:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a Playmate, but a Playboy model and a Playmate's sister. Between her Playboy work, her low-grade movie career, and her reality TV appearances, I think the GNG is met, even if it is met is a Kardashian-oid way. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly do you call her "movie career"? --Damiens.rf 03:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Hullaballoo, Johnny Mnemonic was a major motion picture. Monty₈₄₅ 03:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Playing a minor appearance in a notable major motion picture does not make you notable. And what Hullaballoo calls her movie career is just minor roles on 4 movies (Johnny Mnemonic being apparently the only notable title) and 3 appearances on 3 distinct tv series episodes, one of them playing the character Girl #2. Does this makes for notability? --Damiens.rf 12:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage found on Google News. Epbr123 (talk) 10:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the articles I see are actually mentioning her on passage when talking about her notable sister Shannon Tweed and her sister's husband Gene Simmons. Have you've run across some non-trivial coverage about the girl herself? --Damiens.rf 12:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has had enough media coverage to be notable.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2011 (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.

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moon Kana

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. Searched using both the English and Japanese spellings of her name. J04n(talk page) 01:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've had a fair bit of trouble with this one too. I'm pretty clear that the artist exists and that the name translation is accurate from a few bloggish style references [75], but when it comes down to coverage that is both reliable and in-depth, I come up empty. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 01:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, I've also been unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for this BLP. Tooga - BØRK! 22:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice as an unsourced BLP article. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:29, 2 May 2011 (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.

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 redirect, without deletion, to List of Playboy Playmates of 1995. Consensus is closest to redirection; redirecting without deletion can facilitate merging or the re-establishment of a separate article upon presentation and citation of further sourcing to establish notability. — Scientizzle 14:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Torres

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 01:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1995. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2011 (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.

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 redirect, without deletion, to List of Playboy Playmates of 2002. Consensus is closest to redirection; redirecting without deletion can facilitate merging or the re-establishment of a separate article upon presentation and citation of further sourcing to establish notability. — Scientizzle 14:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lani Todd

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 01:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2002. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2011 (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.

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linn Thomas

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 01:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just enough higher-profile work outside the Playboy sphere to justify an independent article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per HW. Google News search under Lynn Thomas also. In fact that should be her article name because that's how the newspapers spell it. [76] Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2011 (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.

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. — Scientizzle 14:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sondra Theodore

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 01:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1977. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. This one is a closer call, as she might have received significant coverage as part of the hilariously ghastly "Singing Playmates," whose TV appearances make Rebecca Black seem artful. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - tons of newspaper coverage passing GNG. No playmatehood exception to the GNG. Nominator is confusing trivia as in depth of coverage for importance of the subject. If that's what multiple reliable sources want to cover, that's her notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, give us some examples. Claiming the existence of non-trivial coverage (but refusing to provide any evidence when asked) on every AfD, is not helpful. --Damiens.rf 20:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, example news. [77] Example book. [78] (start at page 283)Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "not helpful" thing is failing to observe the rules of the road detailed at WP:BEFORE, actually. Carrite (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In this particular case, the sources found by Morbidthoughts appear to amount to significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Together with her appearances in Playboy, notability seems has been established. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 10:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - one of the more notable centerfolds from the 1970s. Her picture on the pinball machine was once widespread. Had significant coverage in the media.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:45, 6 May 2011 (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.

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abacab Tour

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

Per WP:CONCERT, non-notable tours of notable bands don't deserve articles. Also, this fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CONCERT. --Klein zach 03:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2011 (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.

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renee Tenison

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 01:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly satisfies WP:ENT even without regard to her Playboy credits. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Playmate of the Year award plus multiple mainstream credits satisfy WP:PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient material for notability . the only apparent bases for this nomination would seem to be either that being a Playmate confers permanent non-notability regardless of any subsequent career, or that the articles were not even looked at individually, DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2011 (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.

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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expenditure incidence

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

Article that gives no indication as to what it is trying to convey, has no context. Mtking (talk) 01:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The name is jargon, and not very common either. The sole reference is to a non-notable World Bank publication which is also very light on explanation and very heavy on jargon. Dingo1729 (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, Redirect to Fiscal incidence. Philosophically, Colonel Warden (below) is actually correct in the sense that the concept is interesting and notable. The problem with this article is that the title is bad and the content doesn't say much. Which doesn't leave anything worth merging. It would be better to develop the Fiscal incidence article. I would actually like a better title for that but I can't think of a short enough one. Dingo1729 (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. No meaningful context. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The concept has great notability as a book search immediately indicates. The current poor state of the article is not a reason to delete - please see our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no evidence of substantive coverage, no sources in article, just a small amount of incomprehensible jargon. That it is WP:IMPERFECT (which is just one section of WP:Editing policy) is the least of its problems -- there is the fact that it is in pervasive violation of WP:V & WP:NOR -- and last I checked that is "a reason to delete". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tell us why WP:NOT#DICTIONARY does not apply to this rather thin and, to me, rather vague article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#DICTIONARY states "If possible, articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content.". Please explain how this is an argument for deletion.

Comment I have expanded the article from the source provided and some of the other similar sources. The above objections are now all obsolete. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe that this should be re-directed to Fiscal incidence which includes Expenditure incidence as one of its three sub-topics. It would be better to develop this subject there and only split it out if and when that article becomes unwieldy. I really don't see why this has to be a separate article when Expenditure incidence, Taxation incidence and Benefits incidence are so intertwined in the literature. Dingo1729 (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the recent additions appear to be a small and scattershot collection of loosely connected factoids (WP:INDISCRIMINATE?), the largest of which appears to be more than a little WP:HOWTO. It does not amount to a coherent exposition of the subject (even at a stub level), which may, as Dingo1729 suggests, be better explained as part of Fiscal incidence. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news archive search only gives five results, while Google book search gives 1,710, and Google scholar gives 675. Looking through the first two pages of results for Google books, I find that some of those results refer to this concept clearly. It does exist, and it does get discussed, it clearly a notable aspect of understanding finances. Dream Focus 23:13, 3 May 2011 (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.

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 redirect, without deletion, to List of Playboy Playmates of 1998. Consensus is closest to redirection; redirecting without deletion can facilitate merging or the re-establishment of a separate article upon presentation and citation of further sourcing to establish notability. — Scientizzle 14:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Taylor

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 01:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1998. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2011 (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.

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 redirect, without deletion, to List of Playboy Playmates of 2002. Consensus is closest to redirection; redirecting without deletion can facilitate merging or the re-establishment of a separate article upon presentation and citation of further sourcing to establish notability. — Scientizzle 14:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberley Stanfield

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 01:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2002. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2011 (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.

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 no consensus. There's a serious lack of any kind of strong opinion one way or another here despite a previous relist. ~ mazca ^talk 12:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clanger (Australian rules football)

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

Appears to me that this term
- is at best, a WP:DICDEF that should be ported to Wiktionary
- or otherwise, would make an a good entry in Urban Dictionary
As *not* always, please *do* agree with me. Shirt58 (talk) 11:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 17:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment leaning keep. See this article from less than a month ago in The Age, which I've added to the article as a reference. Considering that was from less than a month ago and I'm not the best at finding references, I think it would be safe to assume there are more references out there. Also, when you look at all the articles in Category:Sports terminology and its subcats, there seems to be precedent to keep articles such as this one. Jenks24 (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't this just a variation on the general term "(s)he dropped a clanger"? (which I get 226,000 ghits for) Unless there's a very specific reference within Aussie rules (as, say, in Error (baseball)) then I'd lean towards delete. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is a specific type of statistic recorded by Champion Data (the leading company for statistics recording in AFL). Jenks24 (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, so I'd expect to see it in use somewhere - somewhere where's it's being cited for example. So, maybe, here? Which it isn't - and Champion seem to be a fantasy football stats provider, yes? So I can see how it might be used in that, although I know nothing about the notability of AFL fantasy leagues. Sorry, it might be notable but at the minute I can't see anything that makes it so. I'm very happy to change my mind once that notability's shown, but until then I'm still at delete, OK? Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Although Champion Data do provide the stats for fantasy leagues, they are also the official statisticians of the AFL and all AFL clubs. I will quote verbatim from the reference I added to the article
      The terminology sold the technology. Reams of data weren't enough - Hopkins needed a new vernacular for his new stats, and the names he came up with ("Hard ball gets", "The Clanger", etc) quickly became part of the football lexicon. Eddie McGuire began using the new language on The Footy Show, and by 1997 every club was paying for weekly statistical reports, if only for $5000 a season. (These days, a full suite of products can cost almost $100,000 a season.) In 1998, the company won an AFL licence to deliver statistics, a deal driven by the creation of AFL.com.au and which allowed them to expand.
      Whether this is what you were looking for in terms of proof of notability is up to you. Jenks24 (talk) 11:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, "part of the football lexicon". Where? Show me that and I'm perfectly happy. Until then it's verging on the something someone made up I'm afraid. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree with Red Prolate Spheroid Thing, and I stand by my initial WP:DICDEF rationale. But now, every time I tune into the radio to listen to a game, or pick up a copy of The Big Paper (Melbourne) or The Little Paper (Melbourne) this use of "clanger" seems to be ubiquitous, as if just to mock me. Aaaarrgh! --Shirt58 (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Yes, it has definitely entered the football lexicon. Just did a google news search for the term "clanger + AFL" (see [79]) and got hits such as "Sydney had 24 clangers by foot" (ref), " "Through the game we've ended up with 80 ineffective or clanger kicks, which is just way too high," Ratten said." (ref), "Eight of his 15 kicks were either ineffective or of the clanger variety" (ref), "produced a quarter that amounted to just two combined goals and 15 clangers" (ref), "Gilbert found a game-high seven clangers to take his season tally to 21" (ref) and "of the 700 disposals, 200 were ineffective or clangers" (ref). All of those refs are newspaper articles from major Australian cities (eg Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide). Jenks24 (talk) 11:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        They're perfect then! The only question is whether it falls into the dictionary category. I'd imagine that there's mileage though. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reading through the WP:NOTDIC policy, I'm not really convinced that we're barred from having articles on sports terminology; indeed, we have a great many articles on other things of this sort. This term is heavily used in coverage of Australian rules football, and explaining its meaning can lead to expansion into a full encyclopedia article. As a result, I really don't see any major problems with retaining this article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2011 (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.

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of University of the Philippines – Diliman student organizations

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

Not encyclopedic. The article has become an extensive list of non-notable student organizations and spam. Wikipedia is not a directory. Moray An Par (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Moray An Par (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Moray An Par (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article list of UP student organizations looks like an online directory that is part spam, and vandalised to some extent. It is very much better suited for the official University of the Philippines wiki website(no, that's not on Wikipedia, seriously.), or WikiPilipinas instead. Zollerriia63 (talk) 07:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOT : WP is not a directory, better suited for uni website. If it is kept, remove all entries that do not have there own non-redirected WP article.Mtking (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTDIR. I'm sure a list of student organisations is readily accessible off the university's website. LibStar (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2011 (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.

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attaullah Khan Essa Khailwi

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

The subject exists, unfortunately can not find any significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 13:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here's some significant coverage in All Things Pakistan, which seems to be pretty reliable, this almanac lists the subject as one of a handful of well-known Pakistani folk singers and this local newspaper thousands of miles from Pakistan describes him as an internationally-known musician. I suspect that we are up against the perennial problem of transcription here - there are probably hundreds of different ways that the subject's name could be written in the Roman alphabet. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Phil Bridger says it all. Mar4d (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2011 (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.

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Tonge

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

Delete Doesn't quite meet the notability criteria for actors. Only had one minor part and has never been the subject of truly significant media coverage. (The two references provided are extremely superficial.) Pichpich (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 17:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ENT. No evidence of significant multiple roles. LibStar (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No notable media coverage. Keb25 (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2011 (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.

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 redirect, without deletion, to List of Playboy Playmates of 2002. Consensus is closest to redirection; redirecting without deletion can facilitate merging or the re-establishment of a separate article upon presentation and citation of further sourcing to establish notability. — Scientizzle 14:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Spytek

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 01:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2002. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2011 (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.

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 redirect, without deletion, to List of Playboy Playmates of 1999. Consensus is closest to redirection; redirecting without deletion can facilitate merging or the re-establishment of a separate article upon presentation and citation of further sourcing to establish notability. — Scientizzle 14:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Spicer

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 01:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1999. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested above. This large swath of dozens upon dozens of nominations is highly disruptive and should have taken place in a community forum focused on Playmates of the Month/Year rather than clogging up AfD. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2011 (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.

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 redirect, without deletion, to List of Playboy Playmates of 1999. Consensus is closest to redirection; redirecting without deletion can facilitate merging or the re-establishment of a separate article upon presentation and citation of further sourcing to establish notability. — Scientizzle 14:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Sokolova (model)

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 01:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1999. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per HW - Apparently she was in Swordfish and some other movie[80] but that's about it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2011 (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.

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 redirect, without deletion, to List of Playboy Playmates of 2002. Consensus is closest to redirection; redirecting without deletion can facilitate merging or the re-establishment of a separate article upon presentation and citation of further sourcing to establish notability. — Scientizzle 14:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alana Soares

AfDs for this article:

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Her article also claims she appeared on "several mainstream movies", and cites two of them. A trip to imdb reveals her acting career spawned only those two movies. Damiens.rf 01:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2002. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Her film roles are clearly insignificant. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per HW - one article with more than trivial coverage [81] and her movie credits do not convince me that she should have a separate article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2011 (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.

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 redirect, without deletion, to List of Playboy Playmates of 1985. Consensus is closest to redirection; redirecting without deletion can facilitate merging or the re-establishment of a separate article upon presentation and citation of further sourcing to establish notability. — Scientizzle 14:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Smith (model)

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 01:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1985. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant coverage, and no indication that she's known for anything other than Playboy. (And if this !vote seems very generic, its because so is the article.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2011 (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.

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 redirect, without deletion, to List of Playboy Playmates of 1992. Consensus is closest to redirection; redirecting without deletion can facilitate merging or the re-establishment of a separate article upon presentation and citation of further sourcing to establish notability. — Scientizzle 14:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Sloan

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 01:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1992. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2011 (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.

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 redirect, without deletion, to List of Playboy Playmates of 1993. Consensus is closest to redirection; redirecting without deletion can facilitate merging or the re-establishment of a separate article upon presentation and citation of further sourcing to establish notability. — Scientizzle 14:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leisa Sheridan

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 01:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1993. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2011 (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.

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 redirect, without deletion, to List of Playboy Playmates of 1978. Consensus is closest to redirection; redirecting without deletion can facilitate merging or the re-establishment of a separate article upon presentation and citation of further sourcing to establish notability. — Scientizzle 14:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Janis Schmitt

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not makes you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 01:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1978. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2011 (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.

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 redirect, without deletion, to List of Playboy Playmates of 1985. Consensus is closest to redirection; redirecting without deletion can facilitate merging or the re-establishment of a separate article upon presentation and citation of further sourcing to establish notability. — Scientizzle 14:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Saunders

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not makes you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 00:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1985. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2011 (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.

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 redirect, without deletion, to List of Playboy Playmates of 1978. Consensus is closest to redirection; redirecting without deletion can facilitate merging or the re-establishment of a separate article upon presentation and citation of further sourcing to establish notability. — Scientizzle 14:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monique St. Pierre

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not makes you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 00:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1978. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Playmate of the Year award satisfies PORNBIO, whether it is a strategic commercial decision or not. Google news hits reveals various reliable sources that cover the subject to satisfy WP:BASIC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Playmate of the Year is not an award. Non-trivial coverage on reliable sources may guarantee inclusions. Did you find some? --Damiens.rf 14:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's prior consensus in a recent AfD that PMOYs are notable. From this Gnews search [82], the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, and recreation cover shot hits satisfies BASIC for me. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That was a very problematic AFD and I plan a deletion review on it. I'm just expecting the admin to reply my query. The votes we're basically WP:ILIKEIT and attacks on my person. The first keep voter even assumed that the girl was not notable other than the fact of being playmate of the year, which pretty much establishes that this title is not an evidence of notability. --Damiens.rf 15:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - You still had 6 editors in that AfD who considered that PMOY was a notable recognition/award/status. You can characterise it as ILIKEIT or not an award but evidence is staggeringly against you that it's not a well known award. [83] Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The editors in that AfD were more interested in mocking me than in providing any support for the claim that playmate of the year should be considered an award, despite being a strategic decision by Plaboy Corp. about its products. As HullaBalloo perfectly put it there ""Playmate of the Year" is chosen on the same basis that my local supermarket picks the cereal that's on the front page of its weekly circular.". --Damiens.rf 20:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as suggested above. I have no interest right now in the debate over whether or not making Playmate of the Year defines a subject as notable, despite limited third party coverage. If such is deemed to be the case at a later date it can simply be unmerged. I have not the time to copy/paste this to every single playmate nominated on this day, but any closing administrator may feel free to incorporate my thoughts and apply them to any other article of this type. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2011 (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.

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 redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2004. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Whitehead

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not makes you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 00:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2004. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. I could live with a redirect as well. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2011 (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.

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Birchcliff Bluffs United Church

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

Fails WP:ORG. Lack of significant coverage in third party sources per [84]. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 16:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the 5500 GHits that your search returns is evidence of a "<l>ack of significant coverage in third party sources"? Unscintillating (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that I found no significant coverage...meaning depth of coverage. Number of Google hits != to level of significant coverage. What really matters is how many of those 5500 Google hits are non-trivial sources, and from my search, that was very few if any. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:GOOGLEHITS. LibStar (talk) 03:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A typical local church congregation does not satisfy WP:ORG, the applicable notability guideline. No presentation of significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. See also Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations), a failed notability guide for religious congregations and their buildings, which represented the thoughts of several editors on the subject. Edison (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:GNG is an alternate applicable guideline. Unscintillating (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found 21 hits in the last 4 years in a Toronto newspaper. Here are three of those hits:

www.insidetoronto.com/what's%20on/article/913843--different-holiday-stories-shared-at-birchcliff-united-church-this-year
www.insidetoronto.com/what's%20on/article/227948--a-christmas-carol-read-aloud-twice
www.insidetoronto.com/article/62287--bluffs-food-bank-expands-services-to-meet-needs
My point here is that there is more to this church than the article and the above two comments reveal. Unscintillating (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just an ordinary church, really. St Anselm (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How big is it? Unscintillating (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not sure what makes it notable. Humourously, it links to List of United Church of Canada churches in Toronto, and look at the number of similar articles deleted. Not a deletion rationale, but I wonder how many of these were by similar authors. CycloneGU (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Without Prejudice Given the absence of references for the material currently in this article I think it is reasonable that everything in the article be deleted. At the same time, I personally suspect that this church is WP:N "worthy of notice": it has a history going back almost 100 years, there are multiple newspapers in Toronto, and we know of frequent newspaper articles in one newspaper during the last four of those 100 years. At this point we don't know enough about the church to know its size. None of the delete votes has made a case that this church is not notable (either the research is not verifiable or there is no research reported), what they are saying is that they don't have information that the church is notable. The difference is that a deletion here should be done without prejudice to recreation. Unscintillating (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gnews shows very limited coverage mainly confirming its existence. [85]. most local churches do not have notability, existing for almost 100 years is not a claim for notability. LibStar (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the statement about existing for 100 years was not an assertion of notability so this is a straw man, it is an assertion that there is good reason to believe that 525 sources exist, so the article should be deleted without prejudice. Until research is completed in all of the local newspapers for all of those 100 years, there is not actually research to show that this church is or is not notable, all we can say with the current research is that we don't have sufficient material. Unscintillating (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run-of-the-mill church. --MelanieN (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2011 (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.

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 redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1985. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cherie Witter

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not makes you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 00:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1985. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2011 (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.

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 redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1995. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Witt

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not makes you notable. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 00:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1995. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's an hour of my life I'm never going to get back. Fucking ridiculous. Carrite (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2011 (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.

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magic (upcoming film)

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

Fails either WP:FILM or WP:NOTCRYSTAL...it's hard to tell which one because there are so few concrete sources. IMDb and a few other sites have very basic information on the movie and state that the movie was released in 2010, but I can find no solid evidence (reviews, articles, revenue/ticket sales figures, etc.) that actually confirm it was released, let alone notable (Google search). Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 17:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Title indicates film not yet released, IMDb shows release date of 2010. Renaming would take care of the WP:CRYSTAL issue, but there's still the problem of notability under WP:FILM. No revenue figures seen, Netflix doesn't list it so there apparently wasn't a home release. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2011 (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.

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 no consensus. A merge to Lloyd Aéreo Boliviano may be considered. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aerolíneas Sudamericanas

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

Failed company, did never anything to become notable. Cleary fals WP:CORP. AdAstra reloaded (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even failed attempts at being an airline are worthy of note. There is no shortage of references on Google for this failed airline. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 18:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a significant in-depth reference at El Mundo, and a few blog posts mention that it did start flying. Additionally, this fmbolivia article seems to indicate that the cancellation of the license was politically motivated to support both Aerosur and Boliviana de Aviación. Additionally, the Spanish Wikipedia entry, and a few other hits seem to suggest that it very quickly formed a strategic alliance with Lloyd Aéreo Boliviano which essentially combined the two companies (plus the 727s seem to be from LAB directly as well). I'm leaning towards keep, but also think that a merge with LAB, especially its attempts to restart, may be a viable (perhaps better?) option. Ravendrop 19:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge, thanks for the thorough reference checking by Ravendrop, it appears this received enough press to pass wp:GNG. riffic (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2011 (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.

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Roffman

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

I'm not sure the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham newsletter and a very minor mention in the Times make him notable. Dougweller (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable 'actor'. Keb25 (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2011 (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.

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 nomination withdrawn. Bearcat (talk) 04:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chungsen Leung

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

Another campaign brochure for a person with no properly sourced indication of notability for anything other than being an as-yet-unelected candidate in a forthcoming election. As always, he can have an article if he wins, but is not entitled to use Wikipedia as a campaign tool in the meantime. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that being a director of a Publicly Traded Corporation is considered a valid reason for an entry in Wikipedia. There is a reference to that on the page. Ajbutler (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only if they've actually gotten real media coverage in reliable sources in that capacity. It's not enough to be able to demonstrate that they exist by pointing to the presence of their name in a company directory (which is what your "reference" for that claim is — or, rather, what it would be if the link actually worked); you have to be able to demonstrate that there's actually been significant media coverage about them. Bearcat (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added more links, skipping anything political, there's more than enough to leave the entry Keep. A J Butler (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs and the webpage of his own local riding association don't really count as reliable sources, you know. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Businessweek, reuters and tsx were added too. They each have their own pages in Wikipedia, so they should be considered reliable. A J Butler (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're still not really getting what I'm saying — kindly ponder the vast difference between substantial media coverage about him and "directory" coverage which merely mentions him. All of your sources are business directory listings in which his name happens to appear, but they all fail to constitute coverage about him in any meaningful, substantive way that would demonstrate actual notability. We're after confirmation of notability here, not simply confirmation of existence. Bearcat (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Another article written about a single candidate in the federal election that has little to no notable outside this one election campaign. If he wins the election and becomes an MP this article can be written, but not before then. Aaaccc (talk), 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply being a political candidate who is yet to actually be elected is not grounds for notability. no evidence of him meeting WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Discussion was still open as of election night, and he won. Bearcat (talk) 04:48, 3 May 2011 (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.

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leviathan (journal)

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

Non-notable journal/magazine. Only 2 issues produced so far, neither of which seems to have generated much interest. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 07:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Except under extraordinary circumstances, new journals will almost never be notable. This seems to be part of a recent trend on Wikipedia of having articles on new journals. It may be time to firm this up one of our deletion guidelines. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2011 (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.

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 disambiguate. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graphical language

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

No assertion of notability, unreferenced, and lacks clear focus on a single topic. Diego Moya (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect somehwere A graphical language is a language that uses graphic constructs lexically, like a written language (pictographic, most obviously, but any written language, since they all use graphemes) 65.94.45.160 (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Visual language per the existing suggestion. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What content do you feel could be merged? Almost all of it is unreferenced, and frankly it reads as an essay about language theory in general; there's really few content specific about graphical language. And a Chinese web page being an example of graphical language? A few recognizable visual characteristics in links don't constitute a language IMHO. So what would you place at Visual language and how? Diego Moya (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turn into a disambiguation page: "Graphical language can refer to: ▪ a computer language for creating or describing computer graphics / ▪ a visual language. --Lambiam 00:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graphical language should be specifically for formal languages used on computers Gmstanley (talk) 04:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Graphical language" should be separate, focusing on formal, graphical modeling languages used on computers. These are common, for instance for workflows - reference the BPMN article in Wikipedia. They are also used in monitoring and control, as in the GDA reference cited, or in the "Sequential Function Chart" article in Wikipedia (based on the earlier GRAFCET graphical language, used for PLCs), or in the graphical language used as cited in the Wikipedia article on LabVIEW. While the current "graphical language" page is currently a bit of a hodgepodge that needs focus, it still differs from the "visual language" article. The "visual language article is even more of a hodgepodge of psychology, art, etc., focusing on how humans interact with each other.

There's a visual programming language article for that already.Diego Moya (talk) 05:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of that page until now. That could cover some cases. I would say that many graphical languages

used on computers are not really visual programming languages, though. To me, a real "programming language" generally emphasizes specification of a series of steps - it is basically procedural (although some of those procedures are what to do to respond to events, etc.). But some modeling languages are truly declarative. That is, they don't specify steps. They are typically a model of some aspect of the real world or perhaps a computer application. As an example, consider a graphical language that allows someone to represent a fault tree graphically. That's a completely declarative representation of how faults propagate, e.g., how various root causes of something like loss of coolant in a nuclear reactor propagate to cause the loss of coolant, and then propagate further leading to release of radioactive gas, etc. That model stands by itself independent of its usage. It could be used for prediction -- e.g., mark a valve as stuck, and follow the implications to see what will happen. Conversely, hypothesize an event like loss of coolant, and trace back through the diagram to figure out what might have caused it. Or, estimate the future probabilities of events based on the probabilities of failures of each of the root causes. The point is that different "engines" treat the same graphical model differently, even though it's the same model. It's up to an "engine" to decide what to do with that model. (I've been involved with graphical languages that make multiple uses of given graphical models.) A workflow representation like BPMN is a representation of something that is essentially procedural, so might be considered a graphical programming language, but not all graphical languages are like that. Gmstanley (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gmstanley, that detailed commentary is interesting but should be placed at the article's talk page. What we're trying to determine is what to do with the current article's contents - is there anything that could be saved, or should we start again from a blank page in the direction you propose? Diego Moya (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a plausible search term, so this title shouldn't be a redlink. I'll go with disambiguate per Lambiam.—S Marshall T/C 23:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, I'm also think now that disambiguate is the best idea so far. Referenced content about programming languages can be merged to visual programming language. Diego Moya (talk) 08:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. Although not meriting its own article, the term is still a plausible search term and should be used to help users find what they want. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:45, 1 May 2011 (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.

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 merge to les UX. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Perforation

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

Irrelevant non-notable organization. Damiens.rf 20:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no third-party notice of this group. If kept, article should be moved to the organization's official English name. --NellieBly (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Hi NellieBly. The article does actually show 'third-party notice', including the version of the article at the time of your reviewing it. The third-party notice shown is NPR and The Guardian, which I imagine we would both agree are notable so I will assume you overlooked these links. LEKI (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apart from receiving press coverage in Paris media outlets (Le Parisien, Libération, RTL, likely others), I think that a group that was referred to by-name in both The Guardian in the UK and in a story on National Public Radio in the United States is probably notable enough that retaining a stub about the art group is acceptable. LEKI (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (recommendation change to merge per Comte0's research below 13:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)) per the significant coverage in reliable sources found by searching for the subject's name rather than an unnecessarily translated article title: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. I would also add that the word "irrelevant" in the nomination is itself irrelevant to a deletion discussion, as it is meaningless without a statement of what this topic is irrelevant to. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Helpful One 00:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with les UX, per [86]. In this article, the quote Or, la « Mexicaine de Perforation » n'est qu'une vitrine de l'UX (Urban Experiment) translates as : However, the Mexican drilling [society] is but a front for the UX. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2011 (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.

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Smith (footballer born 1977)

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

This person fails the WP:GNG as he lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This article was previously proposed for deletion but was kept because he had "played in europe", however the source for that was a UEFA team list which is a textbook example of WP:ROUTINE coverage. Mtking (talk) 00:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ATHLETE, longstanding consensus is that playing in a notable competition confers automatic notability without the need for passing the GNG. --Dweller (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does he pass WP:ATHLETE? As far as I can see he's never played in a fully-professional league, and qualifying round matches in Europe aren't considered sufficiently notable. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE ("Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully-professional league"). Smith has not played in a fully professional league. Number 5 7 10:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 10:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I created the article Liam Brownhill, a Droylsden player who competed in the second round of the FA Cup with Droylsden. That got deleted because it failed WP:ATHLETE and I think this article is in the same boat.Liam Taylor 11:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is insufficient coverage for this player to pass WP:GNG and he has not played in any fully pro league, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT. Playing in the qualifying rounds of the Europa League does not grant notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Qualifying rounds of a continental competition isn't enough, in my opinion. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. I'm sure there are less notable sportspeople with articles about them, but he still fails the criteria. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2011 (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.

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Southern Indoor Football League season

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

Non notable sports league, appears to fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:ORG. PROD declined. No references support notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indpendent reliable sources provided.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:12, 28 April 2011 (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.