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. For the avoidance of doubt this means that the articles should be kept and not truned into redirects, per WP:NOCON "lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit".

The majority of participants were against deletion, wanting to retain the titles in one form or another. Of the few who wanted outright deletion, most confused notability of lists with notability of items on the list and were thus not putting forward a rationale based in policy, a point made by several of the participants. It has be said that some of the keep participants made a similar mistake, arguing that since Playboy was notable, the models were notable and thus the list was notable. This is a failure of WP:NOTINHERITED of course.

Those wanting to redirect in some form were in a slight majority over those wanting to keep, but not so overwhelmingly as to stop this being no consensus. Of the redirect group, there was no consensus over where the articles should be redirected to. They were split roughly evenly between redirecting to List of Playboy Playmates of the Month and merging into the decades list. SpinningSpark 19:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Playboy Playmates of 1958[edit]

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

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

Articles included in nomination
Currently redirects unless otherwise noted. List of Playboy Playmates of 1954 List of Playboy Playmates of 1955 List of Playboy Playmates of 1956 List of Playboy Playmates of 1957 - not a redirect List of Playboy Playmates of 1958 - not a redirect List of Playboy Playmates of 1959 List of Playboy Playmates of 1960 List of Playboy Playmates of 1961 List of Playboy Playmates of 1962 List of Playboy Playmates of 1963 List of Playboy Playmates of 1964 List of Playboy Playmates of 1965 List of Playboy Playmates of 1966 List of Playboy Playmates of 1967 List of Playboy Playmates of 1968 List of Playboy Playmates of 1969 List of Playboy Playmates of 1970 List of Playboy Playmates of 1971 List of Playboy Playmates of 1972 List of Playboy Playmates of 1973 List of Playboy Playmates of 1974 List of Playboy Playmates of 1975 List of Playboy Playmates of 1976 List of Playboy Playmates of 1977 List of Playboy Playmates of 1978 List of Playboy Playmates of 1979 List of Playboy Playmates of 1980 List of Playboy Playmates of 1981 List of Playboy Playmates of 1982 List of Playboy Playmates of 1983 List of Playboy Playmates of 1984 List of Playboy Playmates of 1985 List of Playboy Playmates of 1986 List of Playboy Playmates of 1987 List of Playboy Playmates of 1988 List of Playboy Playmates of 1989 - not a redirect List of Playboy Playmates of 1990 List of Playboy Playmates of 1991 List of Playboy Playmates of 1992 List of Playboy Playmates of 1993 List of Playboy Playmates of 1994 List of Playboy Playmates of 1995 List of Playboy Playmates of 1996 List of Playboy Playmates of 1997 List of Playboy Playmates of 1998 List of Playboy Playmates of 1999 List of Playboy Playmates of 2000 List of Playboy Playmates of 2001 List of Playboy Playmates of 2002 List of Playboy Playmates of 2003 List of Playboy Playmates of 2004 List of Playboy Playmates of 2005 List of Playboy Playmates of 2006 List of Playboy Playmates of 2007 List of Playboy Playmates of 2008 List of Playboy Playmates of 2009 List of Playboy Playmates of 2010 List of Playboy Playmates of 2011 List of Playboy Playmates of 2012 List of Playboy Playmates of 2013 List of Playboy Playmates of 2014 List of Playboy Playmates of 2015 List of Playboy Playmates of 2016 List of Playboy Playmates of 2017 List of Playboy Playmates of 2018

Articles included in nomination

Currently redirects unless otherwise noted.

This is a discussion for every page between List of Playboy Playmates of 1954 and List of Playboy Playmates of 2018. I recently redirected them all to the more relevant decade list, such as List of people in Playboy 1970–1979. This follows on the heels of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_2019, which closed as delete but had a majority of votes for "delete all". I felt that redirecting the rest would not be controversial and would save bureaucratic time, but apparently not.

As I reasoned at the AfD for the 2019 one: Fails WP:NLIST, which states a list must have been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Note the sources plural. The only organization discussing these as a group is in fact Playboy itself. We are not a directory of Playboy models. All it seems to be doing is listing a bunch of non-notable women, which opens up the doors to all sorts of BLP issues, and then just lists their body measurements, an obviously sexual detail. I fail to see how it is in any way encyclopedic. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the participants of the last discussion: Wizzito Pburka Zaathras K.e.coffman Genericusername57 力 Johnpacklambert Filmomusico CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wanted to park some past AFDs here as I consider the issue more fully: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Playboy Playmates of 1961 (Keep, May 2011); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Playboy Playmates of 2014 (Keep, July 2014); Talk:List of Playboy Playmates of 2015 (Speedy deletion rejected, May 2015) ("this list should remain until such time as the nominator gets together some consensus to delete all the lists."); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Playboy Playmates of 1995 (Keep, Feb 2017) -- these appear to be the main past AFDs and that one speedy deletion that I found. It appears the consensus for the last 10+ years has been to keep the lists; that doesn't foreclose a change, of course.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree. I don't mind red links and creating articles on deceased models, since for them, post mortem periodicals are more abundant then for the living. However, creating articles on the living requires wit and knowledge. I understand that most creators assume that if a model is in a Playboy magazine, that makes her automatically notable, because Playboy magazine is famous, but it's not always the case.--Filmomusico (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was for the individual models. Now for the list: I don't see how a list can be encyclopedic, especially when it comes to call girls. Like, I understand that there is probably a field for those type of people that like such directories, but I can find similar if not better directories on any other porn site. That said, we need to remember that Wikipedia is first and foremost - an encyclopedia. Creating lists that list every model and her breast size is a bit strange. Why not list eye and hair color too?--Filmomusico (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I feel there is no need for separate annual pages, the decade pages can be expanded, if necessary. In fact, I think folks looking for information on these models are better served keeping the information together, less jumping around.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the thing is, is that even decade pages are unnecessary. At least, that's the notion that I am getting from @CaptainEek:, and I agree with that statement.--Filmomusico (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no reason to treat notice in this one magazine as something so special we need such comprehensive lists for it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with @Johnpacklambert:.--Filmomusico (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There may be legitimate reasons to merge or delete these lists, but the rationale that the topic hasn't been discussed as a group by reliable sources doesn't hold water. Here are some of the sources I presented in the last AfD, and there are plenty more available: "Seven Tenths Incorrect: Heterogeneity and Change in the Waist-to-Hip Ratios of Playboy Centerfold Models and Miss America Pageant Winners" in The Journal of Sex Research, Harding, Les, A Biographical Dictionary of Playboy Magazine's Playmates of the Month, 1953-1979 (McFarland 2019) and Edgren, Gretchen. The Playmate Book: Six Decades of Centerfolds (Taschen 2005). There's an independent biographical dictionary covering a quarter-century of Playmate models; if that's not evidence of notability then I don't know what would be. pburka (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure this dictionary is actually indepedent. Wikipedia should not and cannot cover everything that ever gets published. Also the fact the source stops in 1979 means it in no way supports having lists any more recent than that year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm quite sure it's independent: it's written by a former librarian who lives in Newfoundland and published by a respected academic publisher. The volume is presented to demonstrate that the set of Playboy Playmates have been discussed as a group, and the other sources cover more recent members of the group. pburka (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The fact that "it's written by a former librarian" doesn't sell on Wikipedia. I do agree with the fact that "[it's] published by a respected academic publisher".--Filmomusico (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Did a librarian take your lunch money? I imagine university librarians from Newfoundland are independent from Playboy Magazine. If you have evidence to the contrary please present it. pburka (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do not have many edits, because I don't edit the main wiki much but I feel this is important enough to voice I think that the pages should be kept. Why? Because the wiki is supposed to be a source of information and the idea, that someone would say, "All it seems to be doing is listing a bunch of non-notable women, which opens up the doors to all sorts of BLP issues, and then just lists their body measurements, an obviously sexual detail. I fail to see how it is in any way encyclopedic," is problematic in my opinion. CaptainEek said that they were non-notable but the wiki has articles on pornstars, and they are notable in the fact they were in playboy. Because the number of people who have been in playboy is relatively small. Their body measurements are part of it, it is like listing reviews regarding movies or car details. It is encyclopedic because again the wiki is supposed to be a source for information.

Johnpacklambert said Wikipedia should not and cannot cover everything that ever gets published. At one time I would agree with you but not now, it is online and it should cover as much as humanly possible. Again a source of information. We want as much information as possible. Including for the playboy mates, one for them who I remember reading killed herself, which I did not know before reading the list of playmates for her year. That is why the articles should be restored Thank you. Allenknott3 (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Allenknott3: Then maybe we should list their race, hair and eye color too? What will your opinion be on this one? Why we should list only their breast measurements, why are they special?--Filmomusico (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You already called them "call girls" above, so your bias is pretty evident.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It may be helpful to list all relevant past discussions and current articles. For example, we have the article List of Playboy Playmates of the Month. --Hipal (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a side note, we don't have lists for Maxim models, so what should be special about these lists?--Filmomusico (talk) 01:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@Filmomusico: If you want to list all of that, alright, but I do not think/remember the articles listing that information. For the most part, the playboy articles listed only the girl's measurements and sometimes backstory, if I remember correctly. As for the races they are overwhelmingly white women. You may disagree with that but someone likely or dislikes that is not the issue. You are right, the wiki does not have lists for Maxim or other models but first, maybe it should, and second, there is an article for FHM's 100 Sexiest Women should that also be deleted? Third, I would argue that Playboy's impact on society and culture is far great than Maxim or any online site, hint it deserves its own list. Fourth, the pages already exist why even delete them? Fifth, the article you links to share no details on the women, they are literally just names on a page. If they do not have their own wiki article it just links back to the same page. I am not seeing much in the way of counterargument but what it seems to be to me is that some individuals do not like the list because it is Playboys. That is alright, I do not like Playboys, never picked up one, never read one, but what I opposed is the deletion of the pages because some find the women to note, "non-notable women," and that the information should not be here on a wiki despite the wiki being but a source of information. If you do not want to create new pages that fine, because honestly there is no need to after 2020 but for over sixty years Playboys posted playmates and that is noteworthy. Allenknott3 (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Allenknott3:I don't care if it's Playboys or not. Having a list of 100 Sexiest Women it's fine, even Forbes and Time lists their 100 Something every year. No problem here. The problem is the creation of lists which contain over a 100 of women, half of which don't even have their own article. That raises a question: What is the point? As for the listing of eyes and hair, it was just a suggestion, so that people here would not accuse Wikipedia of sexual discrimination. Of course, there was never a list that would list all that on Wikipedia.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment P.S. My vote is to (KeepAugust 2021)them. Allenknott3 (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Allen[reply]
These pages all need an AFD tag, right? Want me to tag them in AWB? –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae: That'd be awesome! I knew there had to be a faster way than by hand...which I admittedly did not want to do and thus did not. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Do we need to notify page creators too? I count at least 7. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Novem Linguae, brilliant. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the decade lists / a single list, with less detailed information. Wiki doesn't need to be giving these people's measurements etc, but I think it is appropriate for them to be listed somewhere. Furius (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does List of Playboy Playmates of the Month suffice for the single list you propose? --Hipal (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all - I think enough comments have been made. As per my reasoning in my comment above, redirect is the most expedient resolution. Any information which interested users wish to merge from these pages can be merged, but that should not be the requirement of the result of this discussion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For those proposing merging/redirecting into the per-decade lists, those lists also include cover models, interview subjects and pictorials. We've seen that Playmates (aka centerfold models) as a group are notable, since reliable sources treat them as a group. Are these other lists of Playboy people also notable? I'm leaning towards the position that only Playmates have demonstrable notability as a group and it's the per-decade lists that are non-notable. pburka (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pburka: Not only. We have a List of Miss Universe titleholders, List of Miss America titleholders and, low and behold: List of Victoria's Secret models. Those are also models and are also notable.--Filmomusico (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- How are those lists relevant to the current discussion? pburka (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Pburka: I was responding to your suggestion of creating Maxim model lists.--Filmomusico (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't know what you're talking about. pburka (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Pburka: Sorry, I was replying to @Allenknott3: and accidentally pinged you instead.--Filmomusico (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per my last vote. Having per-year articles is a combination of a CFORK of the content on per-decade articles, and a COATRACK to have biographies of non-notable people. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all per power-enwiki. Reywas92^Talk 20:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@Filmomusico: the point is to list the women with whatever information exists. It is not sexual discrimination. Are you kidding? Playboy historically features women posing nude. Their measurements are just like a football player's stats, height, weight, 40 yards time, etc. Why are some lists are acceptable others are not? I think the pages that list them should be left alone. Allenknott3 (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. Yes, I am aware that Playboy features nude women, but I never thought of it as player's stats.

--Filmomusico (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for "why some lists are acceptable and others are not", please refer to here or better yet, here.--Filmomusico (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the point is to list the women with whatever information exists Yes, that's been the point all along: To ignore and work around policies against that (NOT, BLP, POV, POVFORK, COAT). --Hipal (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Was a final decision made? Because honestly, I feel like those of us who are arguing to keep the pages are just wasting their time and breathe. Nothing I said is going to convince the other side and I had just given up. However, I had all of the pages saved. @Filmomusico: that is exactly what they are. Just like male pornstars had their measurements lists too. Allenknott3 (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I never seen a male pornstar measurements.--Filmomusico (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am not seeing any arguments here that persuade me the outcomes in the discussions which occurred in 2011-17 and ended in Keep, which I cited near the top, are wrong. This debate is really not about whether playmates are notable, it is just about how we are going to categorize that information and how much of it will be included in our coverage. Sitting here in 2021, I can already tell that editors are losing touch with the extent of U.S. coverage that playmates received in the 60s-90s. So it goes; no one who doesn't study 19th century pop culture U.S. history will know how much horse racing and boxing were dominant cultural pastimes then. There is not a question that Wikipedia readership reads these articles. In July 2021, the 1982 article got 3,352 page views [1] 1976 got 3,486 [2]. 1960 got 1,909 [3] 2014 got 2,912 [4]. If folks aren't aware, these are relatively popular view counts. Look at your own article creations, e.g., Bouteloua chondrosioides is a fine scientific article by nominator CaptainEek. It got 14 views in July 2021. [5]. And my creation Nick of the Woods, on a legit 1837 bestselling book, only got 111 views in July 2021.[6]. People read these articles because they are notable, not vice versa. When it comes to humans and sexuality, rationality can be harder to achieve, its the way we are built. I know we go by policy and consensus, and I agree with those rules, so this will be my last comment here. I am glad we had a debate instead of just redirecting them all without an AFD on the group. I see that Allenknott3 has saved all the pages, and a redirect outcome (if that's the outcome) is still going to preserve page history if future consensus alters. So Allen or someone else will make a fan wiki with all this information, and probably not police it as well as we will. Cheers.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Milowent: I don't think the articles are viewed by notability criteria. Notability criteria is for us - for a reader it's baseless. The reader clicks on whatever we put out for a reader to see, if you get what I am saying.--Filmomusico (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Filmomusico: Most articles get very little traffic; if something is popular, it is often notable, this is my area of academic interest.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Milowent: Yes, but not everything that is being clicked on, means that someone is reading something of interest. I for one, can click on an article, go to sleep, come back, click on something else (assuming that I am not an editor). And lists especially. Who reads them? The Playmates that have nothing else to do in their spare time?

--Filmomusico (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like, no disrespect to the Babes Next Door, but there is a difference between listing notable models and listing non notable ones. For example, I am in support of keeping a list of films by a famous actor or director (as well as lists of films by year in general), because we sometimes can't fit over a dozen films on their bio page (and, there are more films coming out every year then there are Playmates).

Same is with music. However, we don't need to create lists for models, and especially creating them by the decade and then by year.--Filmomusico (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's clear to me that lists of Playmates are notable, as reliable sources treat them as a group. It's not clear that the lists of other people in each Playboy issue are notable, so I'm dubious of a merge to the broader per-decade lists. The precise granularity of aggregation and the level of detail to include in each entry are content decisions. pburka (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into List of Playboy Playmates of the Month would be acceptable. pburka (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In looking at the guidelines, I’m not seeing how being on a list makes one notable, being in one magazine or one centerfold for that matter meets any of the notability criteria?? There are some truly notable playmates, but one is not notable purely by association, and an association with playboy (as a playmate) does not make said playmate notable. Lacking significant coverage and general notability.HedgeFundReporter (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HedgeFundReporter (talk · contribs). I can't agree more. Not every playmate is considered notable simply because she is a playmate. I will bring an example here: Anna Nicole Smith wasn't considered notable until played in a dozen of films and later died of drug overdose and CNN and other big news outlets including BBC and The Guardian chimed in. Meanwhile, some kind of Playboy Playmate named Amy Miller (real name, possibly), is only featured there and a whole bunch of other pornsites. And now, I am not talking about this Amy Miller (in case if somebody will want to accuse a notable writer to be a pornstar). This Amy Miller. --Filmomusico (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: This AFD looks like it never appeared in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 4 or any other daily list page (at least none link to this discussion right now). So it was not readily available to editors who weren't otherwise aware of it. We probably need to relist and ensure it shows up on daily list.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want any of the Playboy articles or information about Playboy playmate, or magazines deleted

        Ciro-flex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciro-flex (talk • contribs) 14:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: This nomination was started two weeks ago but is still incomplete. Have you abandoned it? If so, please formally withdraw the nomination. pburka (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pburka: Since there are outstanding delete !votes, it is for an admin to determine whether a consensus exists of can exist, not for the nominator to maintain the debate. This AfD started out malformed, and it still may not be complete in a few places. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gene93k: Thank you for listing the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and thus completing the nomination steps. pburka (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On balance, Keep. I am not an expert in this area, but (to deal with one comment made by some others) even I recognise the significant cultural impact of Playboy Magazine. I've reviewed the various ways of presenting the information, and I do like the decade by decade format for overall monthly content of each issue of Playboy. But I also really liked the separate pages for each year, giving more information on each month's "Playmate": it made it easy to identify similarities and differences, and helped me to understand how tastes could evolve over time. RomanSpa (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just to be clear, I specifically oppose CaptainEek's wholesale redirections. I would also support a re-creation of the recently-deleted List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_2019 for consistency. I regret missing that debate! RomanSpa (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the lot per the salient arguments above - that these individual lists act as partial content forks and fail various aspects of our list guidelines (e.g. that Wikipedia isn't a repository for indiscriminate collections of information). firefly ( t · c ) 10:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think we're confusing WP:NOTABLE with WP:NOTEWORTHY. Quoting the latter:
The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception of lists that restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies.

I've recently been fixing the dead links in the citations of these articles. Many of them are from newspaper sources rather than Playboy. To my mind the problem is that there's an attempt to give each Playmate an equal-sized lede-like paragraph, and not all Playmates have the sources to warrant that. It would make more sense to remove the unsourced content from the articles, leaving only the Playmates' names if necessary, rather than to delete all the articles and lose all the sourced content. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These bulk nominations are an utter pain and Over the years we have had a mixed bag when it comes to successfully handling them. In the past being a playmate of the month was a big deal but I don’t think it is anymore and there is a question over where is the point that this become irrelevant and a magnet for content we no longer need. In my opinion we need to let this run its course and relist liberally until we are clear that we have a settled consensus. probably also worth listing somewhere prominent to draw in wider comment. As for the content, I don’t have a strong opinion but could live with a redirect and expanding decade articles with truly notable content Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to List of Playboy Playmates of the Month. One is enough. One List to rule them all, One List to find them. One List to bring them all, and in Wikipedia bind them. In the Land of Hefner, where the porn lies. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to List of Playboy Playmates of the Month. Having them listed there seems sufficient. Otherwise its like a porn catalog, showing their image, their breasts size, and other measurements. Dream Focus 21:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As per above, I agree with redirect option for all of the listed articles.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 21:07, 27 August 2021 (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.