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. Daniel (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This strikes me as inherently problematic. There are numerous magazines in this genre which use a monthly featured model as a marketing gimmick, and it is really nothing more than that. Sourcing is not great for showing that the list itself is notable. The vast majority of names on this list are non-notable people. If anything, the existence of the designation should be discussed in the Penthouse (magazine) article, and an abbreviated list should be presented there, limited to notable individuals who happen to have been so-named. BD2412T 18:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT - FYI as far as article creator User:MutterErde: "This user has been banned from editing the English Wikipedia by Jimbo Wales". Don't know the issue(s) involved - maybe BLP or the like - just surprised it was Jimbo. — Maile (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the article creator is automatic, but I don't think that weighs into the propriety of the article itself one way or the other. BD2412T 21:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT I don't think this can be compared to regular periodicals as it's an integral part of the identity, just like Playboy centrefolds. It's something people will be interested in. I also don't think the notability of any people should weigh in here as it's about the notability of the list. Obviously such a list should be complete. I think any decision should be based on the quality and sustainability of the list. So unless there's obvious problems in that regard I'm leaning towards keep as I haven't seen any valid criticism against the list itself. Biofaseflame| stalk 00:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't (and shouldn't) have a freestanding List of Hustler Honeys or List of Gallery Girls Next Door or List of Genesis centerfold models, or any of the other magazines in the genre outside of the List of Playboy Playmates of the Month, which contains a substantially higher caliber of notability of its membership (despite also having a dearth of sources). The obvious problem is that the list is unencyclopedic in the first place. BD2412T 02:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you're singling out one list to the exclusion of others. It sounds more like you're applying notability as a competitive criteria and not a value criteria. So I'm sticking with my criteria unless the article itself is problematic there's no reason not to keep it. Also I hope you're not referring to the old "wikipedia is not..." argument which has been put to death already as false. Wikipedia is whatever an encyclopedia is and encyclopedias do include how-tos and lists when they are relevant to the time. Biofaseflame| stalk 20:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to deletion policy, reasons for deletion include articles that are not encyclopedic according to WP:NOT policy, and in this instance, there does not appear to be support in independent and reliable sources for the notability of this group. I found this article while working on another, because of vague mentions in low-quality tabloid-style sources about the subject having been a Penthouse Pet. And from a general AfD view, this also does not appear to be a notable honor, because of the lack of independent, reliable, and secondary support for the encyclopedic significance - without support in such sources, it appears reasonable to exclude what also appears to be a mostly unverified list of people who are not well-known. Beccaynr (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the list itself is unverifiable it's one thing but this seems to be a made up reason not in the policy as a list is an encyclopedic tool and does not need to be supported or even exist in sources. That's why I said if there are problems with the content of the list then mention it but there are no obvious problems with such a list itself.
Actually just did a quick google search and "penthouse magazine" returns about 30m results while "penthouse pets" return about 20m with many sites dedicated to lists and archives of pets so the topic itself seems pretty notable to me. Biofaseflame| stalk 21:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I shouldn't have mentioned verification when this discussion is otherwise about encyclopedic notability of the group, and sufficiently independent and reliable sources to support notability. So on that topic, the use of a Google test does not help identify specific sources to support notability. If this is a notable distinction in a modeling career, then let's establish that with sources; otherwise, this list appears to lack encyclopedic significance. Beccaynr (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - including per WP:NOTPROMO and WP:NOTDIRECTORY, because WP:NLIST notability of the group does not appear supported by independent and reliable sources. WP:NLIST also does not appear to support inclusion of a list of the notable subjects in the Penthouse (magazine) article because of the lack of support for the notability of the group. Beccaynr (talk) 06:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep penthouse pets are mentioned many times in media and independent sources like 1234 etc. This topic seems pretty notable to me.
Polarbear678 (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:NYPOST and WP:DAILYMAIL (the second and third sources linked in the comment above) are not suitable for supporting notability. The first source is a Youtube video of a "The Penthouse Pet of the year, 1977" interview by the CBC, posted in 2010 and described as "In this clip from 1977, the Penthouse Pet of the year - Vicki Johnson - talks about why she posed for the magazine at a time when Penthouse was considered more controversial than it is today" on the website, which does not appear to support the notability of the Penthouse Pets group. Beccaynr (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't the only sources. Penthouse group is often in the news. There are so many reputable sources that have mentioned it. They have been mentioned in news sources of all political spectrum. I don't see why it is not notable. Polarbear678 (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Post article isn't even about someone who was a Penthouse Pet! It's about a girl literally living in a penthouse suite (a top-floor apartment). BD2412T 19:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was a mistake. I just updated it. Polarbear678 (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines and policy indicate the notability of Penthouse magazine does not contribute to notability for Penthouse Pets as a group - the organizations and companies notability guideline, which has a focus on some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion and a need for quality sourcing, has a section about no inherited notability, e.g. An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not "inherit" notability due to their membership. For this article, we theoretically could verify group membership with the Penthouse website, but this would seem to be WP:PROMO if independent and reliable sources do not support the notability of the Penthouse Pets group. Beccaynr (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 18:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above discussion. Looks like fancruft with an extra flavour of female objectification. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 07:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is exactly one other such publication that is as notable as Penthouse, as Biofase correctly points out, and indeed we have a List of Playmates of the Month article for that one. References to Pets of the Month are numerous, including in reliable secondary sources. I don't accept the nom's slippery slope argument. The Hustler Honeys or the Genesis centerfolds have nowhere near the notability of those who appeared in Playboy or Penthouse. Owen×☎ 18:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you (or anyone) provide examples of reliable secondary sources to support the notability of the group? Beccaynr (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 07:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Penthouse Pets are not at the same level as Playboy Playmates. A significant number of men could probably name a Playmate (even if inaccurately in the case of Marilyn Monroe), while few could identify a Pet. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article is 18 years old and averages over 1000 pageviews a day. Because of the subject matter, some editors have never preferred this type of content. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Playboy Playmates of XXXX (August 2021). Whether we want to have this content is ultimately a value judgment, because no one is debating whether the magazine is notable.--Milowent • hasspoken 22:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Milowent: Yes, the magazine is notable. I have no objection to content on the concept of the "Penthouse Pet" being included in the article, Penthouse (magazine), including a list of notable persons so designated, but there is strangely almost nothing in the article on the magazine about this subject (two lines in the lede, nothing at all in the body). BD2412T 22:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG. Unless more robust independent sourcing can be found, I don't think the article in its current state is worth keeping. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2023 (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.