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 procedural error, this AfD is malformed and stupid. If anyone actually wants to nom this article do it properly. Shii (tock) 04:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It's rather relevant. Czolgolz (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete: It is not going to happen, we will all die. 150.101.221.220 (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete: This is absurd and ridiculous, keep it in the Rapture article if need be. -- Big Brother ^{T | C} 03:37, 9 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. joe decker^{talk to me} 03:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Delgado[edit]

Susan Delgado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN as a write in candidate who garnered a total of 160 votes. AniMate 23:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Ugh. Complete politician and general notability fail. This article is pretty much an unsourced hit-piece on Mario Gallegos, Jr. and could probably be an easy speedy. Tarc (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tarc - fairly close to an indirect db-attack page. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. It does read like a hit piece, but given the links at the bottom, I wouldn't call it unsourced. Ray^Talk 16:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ray. --Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the subject's only claim to notability is as a politician, and she received 0.19% of the vote... And, as noted above the article was probably created with ulterior motives. jorgenev 08:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All the refs seem to focus on another candidate, not on Delgado. Nothing notable here. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Apparently all the negative stuff about the other candidate has already been deleted. Shame on us for allowing this article to be here since 2006 - and thanks to AniMate for finally sending it to AfD. --MelanieN (talk) 00:12, 17 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. joe decker^{talk to me} 03:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Lott[edit]

Noah Lott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Previously deleted as not notable and hasn't done much since then to establish notability. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:ATHLETE, or WP:ENTERTAINER. Also possible WP:COI with article creator. Nikki♥311 23:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Is there are reason why the AFD for "Noah Lottick" is listed here? As far as I can tell, these are completely unrelated. -- Whpq (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I used Twinkle to do this AFD, so Lottick was automatically included...not sure why. Nikki♥311 21:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its just the way that template works; can't be helped. The list is generated with Special:PrefixIndex. It works as expected most of the time, sometimes it just must be ignored. jorgenev 08:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is this news article from a paper in Warsaw, IN that profiles him. Aide from that, I'm not finding anything in the way of significant coverage about him. AS such he fails WP:GNG. WP:ATHLETE does not apply to professional wrestlers. This leaves WP:ENTERTAINER which is also not satisfied. -- Whpq (talk) 13:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article does not establish notability. Reference section was blank when I checked it. A few matches against WWE wrestlers does not a notable individual make. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:29, 16 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. joe decker^{talk to me} 03:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inderjeet Aujla[edit]

Inderjeet Aujla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

PROD removed back in March. This player has never played in a fully-professional league, therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL. He also fails WP:GNG (no coverage I would deem "significant") - instead what we have here is a collection of run-of-the-mill sports reports and profile pages, which contravene WP:NTEMP. It is also worth nothing the article creator is Indyaujla500 (talk · contribs) - potential COI. GiantSnowman 23:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 23:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, did he actually play the four games for Chester City between 2006–2007? I'm struggling to find any thing. If he did, he would meet WP:NFOOTY. --Jimbo^[online] 11:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any evidence either, and this profile of him mentions he played for the reserves, but not the senior team. GiantSnowman 11:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything on the usual reliable sources such as Soccerbase or BBC Sport would pull up a match report with his name in, therefore I'm going to say delete. --Jimbo^[online] 11:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I hate to be a curmudgeon, but this is a pretty clear case of self-promotion for a non-notable individual. He needs to wait until he achieves stardom, then let someone else write his entry. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:37, 16 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 already speedy deleted. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 16:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Impact BBDO[edit]

Impact BBDO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as a copyvio and tagged as such. -- Whpq (talk) 13:43, 10 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. joe decker^{talk to me} 03:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Pucci[edit]

Cindy Pucci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I hate nominating an article for deletion a second time, but I'm afraid I'm just not seeing what makes this person notable. I see an interview with her at Glamourcon and a blurb about an upcoming project on AVN, but I don't see any significant discussion anywhere of her career as a model, an actress, or a porn actress. My opinion is that the sources cited don't really rise to the level of WP:RS, and I'm not finding better sources using Google news. But if you disagree, I'll still like you. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The last AfD indicated that WP:PORNBIO was not met, and I find no indication that that has changed; I do not think that the other appearances are sufficient per the general notability guideline. The sources, interviews, and appearances are completely consistent with a minor figure in a PR-dependent industry, and do not indicate notability at this time. As the subject is a living person, future sources may reverse this assessment. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The subject meets a common interpretation of PORNBIO#4, that any combination of mainstream credits and porn credits demonstrates notability. Time to put that to rest for good. Subject has negligible credits in both fields and fails the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I couldn't find any decent sources which can be used to demonstrate notability or used to fill a bio with independently verified info. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Pornbio #4 says "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media." She has one 2nd billing in a direct-to-video of hidden camera skits. After that it is a slew of low-or-no-billing in other DTV and made-for-tv flicks. There is nothing here to satisfy any of our notability criteria. Tarc (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is Cindy Pucci. Please delete this!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cindypucci (talk • contribs) 04:04, 12 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best Days (Graham Colton song)[edit]

Best Days (Graham Colton song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

borderline notability. Never charted, but was used on television. nothing in article is referenced, but content can be merged into main article Graham Colton to improve what is lacking there. Alan - talk 23:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The first paragraph suggests notability. It received Billboard coverage even if it didn't chart. CycloneGU (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment One article or review as the case may be, isn't enough for notability. it's borderline notability is the songs use on various television programs, and that's very borderline as thousands of songs are used in movies and television, and barely noticed when they are used. Alan - talk 04:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, but I'd also be interested in others' opinions. I agree that it is borderline. But if it made one major chart anywhere (even if it's a major chart in Sweden for all we know), notability is passed. CycloneGU (talk) 04:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish it had, but, he's only popular in the US and parts of Canada, with small groups in other countries due to major artists he's opened for on Us tours. It hurts me to nomininate his articles being I actually know him, but I stay neutral and that's what AFD is for.. consensus from neutral parties Alan - talk 04:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 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) 00:00, 2 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, Sumsum2010·T·C 22:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Here Right Now, the album. I see no compelling reason for a separate song article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:48, 10 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 Osseo Area School District 279. joe decker^{talk to me} 04:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Osseo Junior High School[edit]

Osseo Junior High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Per prior consensus pre-secondary schools are usually not notable unless they stand out somehow academically, this school lacks substantial coverage outside of Primary Sources and has no notability except for being ranked slightly above average for middle schools in the state of Minnesota. Marcusmax(speak) 21:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to school district, per standard practice for non-notable primary schools. Carrite (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The school won an award as the outstanding junior high school in Minnesota. Also, the district has too many schools to accommodate unwieldy sections for each of them. The solution of redirecting to the district page should only be carried out for small districts with a handful of schools.Bellczar (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what award might that be, show me some evidence that this is notable. -Marcusmax(speak) 20:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be an option to include it as a subhead in the article for Osseo High School? The two schools started as one and they share a campus including athletic facilities (e.g., the swimming pool is at the jr high; tennis courts etc. are between the schools; they share a track and ice arena; sr high football field uses jr high locker rooms) and central heating plant.Bellczar (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to school district, per standard practice for non-notable primary schools. School district pages do not need more than a simple listing of the school. Should the school assert notability at a later date, the redirect can be simply undone. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect as usual. Awards can show notability , but there are no sources for any DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (without a merge of information, just a simple redirect) The claim of an award is unimpressive as well as unsourced. Supposedly "The building won an award as the outstanding new school in Minnesota of 1966." The outstanding NEW school in Minnesota? How much competition can there be for that distinction in any given year? --MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 17 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} 16:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of top home run hitters by birthplace[edit]

List of top home run hitters by birthplace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

What makes the birthplace of the home run hitter important enough to make a list dedicated to the subject?– Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —– Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As it stands now, almost entirely OR. Nor do I think that most home runs by state of birth is particularly notable. I could be persuaded that the list of top home run hitters by country of birth is appropriate, if it could be properly sourced. Rlendog (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not terribly notable or encyclopedic. --Coemgenus 01:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Dumb trivia, nothing more, nothing found to support the notability of winners by state/province/country. Tarc (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Very strong keep - Do you people really believe that it's "no big deal" to have the most career home runs for a player from a particular country, or from a particular state? There is nothing "trivial" about this. As for sourcing of the greatest career home run hitters by country, state, province or territory, these results all come from www.baseball-reference.com, the preeminent source of baseball statistics on the Internet, which site allows you to see lists (with full career statistics) of all players born in each jurisdiction. For example, here's the list of players born in Puerto Rico (click on "HR" and it liosts them by career home runs): http://www.baseball-reference.com/bio/P-R-_born.shtml All a person needs to know to figure out what player born in Puerto Rico hit the most homers is to know that 473 is higher than 434 or 379 (and thus Carlos Delgado, not Juan Gonzalez or Orlando Cepeda, hit the most career home runs for a player born in Puerto Rico). AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Chris said in the AfD for wins leaders by birthplace, you have to demonstrate why we should synthesize this statistic with place of birth. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as based on a nonencyclopedic cross-categorization (WP:NOTDIR #7). Deor (talk) 19:39, 15 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hottest Female Athlete[edit]

Hottest Female Athlete (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable. Can't find any coverage from news sources, current article has no sources and very trivial information. - filelakeshoe 20:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is not the most consequential of sports "awards", but it does receive plenty of coverage both within ESPN[1] and in other media outlets.[2] --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE Mariepr (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Zero notability for a website's online fan poll. Not a legitimate or serious "award". Tarc (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is no coverage about this "award" other than it being mentioned in articles about the particular athletes. -- Whpq (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 11 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. Owen× ☎ 22:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kawthekar High School[edit]

Kawthekar High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Very little content and no reliable sources, and very few ghits to indicate notability. » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 20:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the arguments as to why we keep high school articles are given in the essay WP:NHS. Ghits are a very poor measure of the notability of Indian schools as most have very little in the way of Internet presence. To avoid systemic bias we should await a local search for sources from regional newspapers and libraries and the like. Lack of content is also not a valid deletion reason; that's the way of stubs; they start small and grow over the years and is how Wikipedia develops articles.

In my view, Jimmy Wales opinion from November 2003 is still valid:

"...Put another way, if someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and accommodate them, even if we wish they wouldn't do it. And that's true *even if* we should react differently if someone comes in and starts mass-adding articles on every high school in the world. ..."Partial solution to rampant deletionism, Wikimedia, November 7, 2003.

TerriersFan (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per TerriersFan, in accordance with every high school AfD since almost ever.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per TerriersFan, who clearly outlines for us once again the standard practice. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:19, 11 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Major League Baseball season pitching leaders[edit]

2006 Major League Baseball season pitching leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Wikipedia is not an almanac. Anything from this page that needs to be covered can be covered at 2006 Major League Baseball season. This strikes me as an effort that was taken up in 2006 and then abandoned.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —– Muboshgu (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC) – Muboshgu (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm not sure what to do about the stats cruft. There are plenty of resources out there with sortable stat capabilities, why should Wikipedia attempt to be an inferior incarnation of these? Carrite (talk) 00:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:12, 11 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). Jenks24 (talk) 03:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Hope (actor)[edit]

William Hope (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

An apparenly notable actor, whose BLP is totally unreferenced and seeming unreferenceable to reliable sources. Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References can be found with a quick Google search for "William Hope actor". --That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 22:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

when i did that I found an IMDB ref (only kinda reliable), and other things that were not the actor. If you find some please add reliable sources to the article. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This actor has appeared in many significant productions; meets WP:ENT. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I found and added some sources. Granted, he's not the best-known actor, but the article is sourceable. Bearian (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy procedural keep and close per the speedy keep of just [two months and] two days before this renomination. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erm... that was two months and two days ago ;) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 16:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops. My bad. Corrected above. Still think this AFD should be closed, as not being fixed is a reason to do so, but not to delete an improvable article because it was not done within some arbitrary deadline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:39, 13 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salma Shabana[edit]

Salma Shabana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 20:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per WP:NSPORT, athletes competing at the highest level in their sport as considered notable. Her WISPA profile (world governing body for women's squash), her highest ranking was 20, and she has competed at top level competitions. For example, she has competed at the WORLD OPEN 2002. World Open, and Grand Slam events are the top level of competition on the WISPA tour. -- Whpq (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Whpq, it looks like she meets NSPORT. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:42, 14 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. joe decker^{talk to me} 03:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Ju-Jitsu Federation[edit]

World Ju-Jitsu Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A article with questionable notability without sources to support otherwise Dwanyewest (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Apparently, despite it's name, this organization is part of a larger organization. I found no reliable and independent sources that show this organization is notable. Astudent0 (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I also found no coverage of this organization in reliable and independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I see nothing in the article to support notability, and on a cursory search found no independent sources to support notability. Janggeom (talk) 05:04, 16 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. Owen× ☎ 22:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UKJJAI – The United Kingdom Jujitsu Association International[edit]

UKJJAI – The United Kingdom Jujitsu Association International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A article with questionable notability without sources to support otherwise. This is long lacking overdue for deletion Dwanyewest (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is an unsourced article about a non-notable organization. My search found no independent and reliable sources that would support this organization's claim to notability. Papaursa (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My search found no reliable sources that show notability. Astudent0 (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete following all the other comments above. Janggeom (talk) 04:58, 16 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). Jenks24 (talk) 03:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shirin Guild[edit]

Shirin Guild (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is a promotional article for a Non-Notable clothing line and fashion designer. The result of the first AfD in 2006 was to give the article time to develop. After 5 years it still lacks any sources. Poyani (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notable high-end fashion designer. Her work was included in a British fashion exhibition at the Victoria and Albert Museum. This book provides verification for this as part of a chapter covering Shirin Guild and her work. She has also received coverage in news media: [3], [4],. -- Whpq (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the sources added to the article by Whpq are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. --joe decker^{talk to me} 19:32, 11 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. Owen× ☎ 22:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Banknotes of the Indonesian rupiah[edit]

Banknotes of the Indonesian rupiah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A very excessive list of banknotes from one area, no references. All the images have been tagged as free use (and currently removed - as excessive free usage of images in one article).  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Indonesian currency will be covered in all major international banknote catalogues, and is clearly notable. There will also be plenty of Indonesian sources available. The length of article is an argument for splitting it into articles based on denomination or series, not for deleting it. I'm not sure why having a lot of "free use" images would be a bad thing. --Anthem of joy (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. The subject, a national currency, is notable - and it has its own article at Indonesian rupiah. Note, though, that the main article is already tagged as ((Very long)) - which means that forking out subjects for their own articles is warranted. And so, here we are. If it's sourceable, then we need to keep the article. The image problems are a separate issue, one not related to whether or not the article should be deleted. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per above and article seems like it could be sourced with some effort. --That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 22:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep as the person removing the non-free content, I see no reason for deleting the article, a re-evaluation and introducing one or two non-free images along with a few sources and this will make a fairly good article. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Certainly better referencing is in order, but why would any of those reasons warrant deletion? The existence of this currency and its notes is trivially verifiable. Jpatokal (talk) 23:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Reincorporation into the main article will make it too long, if this article is deleted then nomination for all banknote articles is warrented. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 08:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Information about the denominations of national currencies is generally notable. References need improvement, but that is not a cause for deletion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:26, 14 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aphrodite Lafont[edit]

Aphrodite Lafont (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article about some book character who is not notable. The main character does not even have her own page. Username1234567891011 (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no third party coverage readily available through the internet. --Anthem of joy (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)--[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, Sadads (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While fictional characters from notable works should normally be merged or redirected to the work, I can't even determine from the article which book the character derives. If anyone can identify such a work that is notable and has its own Wikipedia article, I'd be happy to see this merged or redirected there. Jclemens (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• She is from The House of Night series. --Username1234567891011 (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Redirect to House_of_Night_(series)#Prophetess per WP:BEFORE. --Malkinann (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also List of characters in the House of Night series --Username1234567891011 (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline because it does not provide reliable third-party sources independent of the subject and a search engine test shows unreliable sources only. The article is also a plot-only description of a fictional work with no real-world context so there is no reason to keep it around. Jfgslo (talk) 04:43, 16 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} 18:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zoot Suit Women[edit]

Zoot Suit Women (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Essay. There's probably some information that can be salvaged and merged into other articles. After that, redir. If not, delete. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC) UtherSRG (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. OR essay. It can go to zoot suit. Szzuk (talk) 07:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, an interesting essay, but Wikipedia is not the place for this per WP:SYN. jorgenev 08:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The first part could be covered in Pachuco, if anything isn't already over there. The Sleepy Lagoon murder already has an article, as does the film its based on. Dream Focus 04:41, 17 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. Favonian (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FML (film)[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)), suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)), accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username))

FML (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Notability of independent student film in question. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 18:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This search string yields no results on Google News. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not even released yet. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Favonian (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I am interested - as I suspect are others - in understanding more about the source and development of new entrants in the UK film industry. This kind of detail is not easy to find. Meets WP:GNG 5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheShapeProject (talk • contribs) 22:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC) — TheShapeProject (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Facebook and YouTube are not reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. The other sources provided do not even mention this film. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 22:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I read [[WP:GNG] 5 as meaning someone finds it interesting and for what I am doing it is. You obviously have strong feelings about it. Fortunately I've read it before you got to delete it :) TheShapeProject (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

WP:GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." This topic has not received this kind of coverage. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (films) for more information on what is considered notable. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 22:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right on WP:GNG general notability – but WP:RFD#KEEP point 5 says “Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways” How much attention should we pay to what interests people?TheShapeProject (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFD#KEEP is for redirects, not articles. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As the writer of the page. I do sympathise with the views expressed over the deletion of this page. However I do also feel that citing 'Is not even released yet' should not factor into the argument. Sadly, in the world of small time independent film, it is extremely hard to gain notice from someone as large as a primary source, especially while still in the production stage. I am heartened to hear that some people appear to back me up that the page is useful, especially considering it is written with total impartiality, and intended to raise awareness instead of sell the film. However, if the reasons I have put are not enough to save the page from deletion, then I guess deleted it must be. At least until the time (should that day come), the film is renowned enough to have access to a first party citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blind sniper43 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC) — Blind sniper43 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment I think there sometimes comes a time, where the upholding of rules actually starts to limit progress. The rules are put in place to a) Stop spam and malicious perversion of content, b) Prevent blatant advertising and c) To ensure the accuracy of all Wikipedia articles, ensuring that they remain factually correct. It does seem to me, slightly wrong, to penalise a fledgling company purely because they do not yet have the contacts in order to provide the wealth of citations required, especially while they are striving to maintain Wikipedia's high standards, and not posting any inflammatory content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blind sniper43 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make something clear, I am not against this article, I am for following the rules of inclusion for this encyclopedia. I am not stoping this article from becoming notable, and once it is, by all means post it in this encyclopedia. But until then rules must be followed, because if we let this one go, hundreds of other articles with poor or no notability have to be let go and this encyclopedia will be useless. My 2 Cents. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 04:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, and accept that you are following rules. It just strikes me that Wiki should be used to inform, and the rules have the unfortunate side effect of penalising small scale industries like music and film, and actually generating somewhat of a hole in your content as a result. It is so hard to gain the citations required, purely due the level of secrecy needed to protect the ideas in the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blind sniper43 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is shameful that, for the sake of upholding petty rules, new entrants to the independent UK film industry are made to suffer. The page is clearly written and I for one found it informative and entertaining to read. Therefore, I hope that the wikipedia admins see sense on this issue and agree to keep this page online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turok117 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC) — Turok117 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • It's not "petty" rules. As encyclopedists, we have a responsibility to ensure as much as possible the accuracy of the contents of this website. This means all information must be verifiable, and by that we mean that we must be able to verify the information without having to contact the concerned parties. That means there has to be some third-party reference available at arm's length that we may consult for verification. ("Taking your word for it" means opening the door to hoaxes and projects that will never see the light of day.) If that makes small producers suffer, then that's a lesser evil, but please keep in mind that if the finished product gets enough attention once released, then your "suffering" will only be temporary. And please keep in mind that every single item that is covered in Wikipedia was at some point unworthy of inclusion, so sticking to the "petty" rules puts everybody on a level playing field. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But these rules mean that Wikipedia is going to be unable to host articles for small independent films full stop. There is no way for them to gain citation, and as a result it is unlikely that a cultural movement will be accurately represented within the encyclopaedia. Thus wiki generates its own hole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blind sniper43 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. That's the lesser evil I was talking about. Wikipedia was never meant as a vehicle of promotion anyway. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The film is not released yet, and there is not any visible published lead-up to the release of the movie. It has no pre-release reviews from national reviewers, and fulfills none of the requirements for notability found in WP:MOVIE Inks.LWC (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not released, and, nothing in the article indicates that it will be notable when it is release. I would , frankly, be perfectly prepared to speedy0-delete this article as G11, entirely promotional. It's argued above that enforcing the rules on notability might mean we "never have articles for independent student films". That would usually be the case, and that's exactly why we do have rules on notability . But it has happened that student films have received critical attention, no matter how rarely it happens, and there is the possibility that one might be notable. It is also the case that a student film by someone who subsequently becomes a famous film-maker whose works are taught in courses about film might become notable on that ground. So delete until one of the people involved become famous. thearguments otherwise amount to "ITS MINE AND I LIKE IT" DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, student film, low budget, home production, no coverage, refs are all to facebook and youtube. jorgenev 08:17, 16 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. No prejudice to recreate as a redir. Owen× ☎ 21:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Submarines in world war 2[edit]

Submarines in world war 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Essay that should be merged into other articles and then deleted. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC) UtherSRG (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Smerge and redirect to Submarine#Submarines during World War II. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title is useful as a redirect. I think it should stay, even if the rest gets nuked. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just look at it. What a mess. --That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 22:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no merge if it were merged it would need to be redirected. There are no references. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no merge essay Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NOTESSAY. This is a one-edit editor's bad attempt at a school essay...and it looks like a big fat F, IMO. Nothing useful to merge, just nuke it. Tarc (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - for reasons given above. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: very poor essay, not much worth saving, but it could be useful as a redirect. bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nomination. Anotherclown (talk) 11:12, 12 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. joe decker^{talk to me} 03:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transborder[edit]

Transborder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested prod. Editorial about US immigrants from the Mexican state of Oaxaca. Factual information duplicates Mexican American, and the term has no evidence of notability. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Questionable notability of the term.  CrossTempleJay  talk 19:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable term. Safiel (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. If the term comes into common currency at some future date, an article may be appropriate - but not now. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 11 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. Not an obvious consensus, but the keeps present a stronger case than the merge opinions. Owen× ☎ 21:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huthaifa al-Batawi[edit]

Huthaifa al-Batawi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable, as the sources just indicate death. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 17:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BLP1E. The sources warrant an article for the event, but not for the people involved. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. The event could have an article with information on al-Batawi included. Raphie (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Known for more than one event. See, for example, Militant leader among 12 caught in connection with Iraq church siege from November 2010. WWGB (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Islamic State of Iraq. Sources indicate no notability of his own other from being leader of that organization. PluniAlmoni (talk) 10:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WWGB. WP:BLP1E does not apply. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article indicates strong significance, just because the event is detailed does not mean his life is that one event and thus the article. Zenithfel (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep figure of importance in major historic events, which will be part of the historical record--in. BLP obviously does not apply, and wouldn't even if he were still alive. The suggested merge is so drastic as to amount to deletion. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 16 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. Owen× ☎ 21:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vladan Nesovic[edit]

Vladan Nesovic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:V/N: While the anchor gig might or might not confer notability, I am unable to find reliable sources to verify the position or to establish any notability via the GNG. joe decker^{talk to me} 17:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No references, none can be found. However, if one can propose an alternate spelling of this Serbian name that leads to reliable sources, I am willing to change my !vote. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable personality.  CrossTempleJay  talk 19:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not finding sourcing.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article asserts "his debut was "Vlast" from B. Nusic, playing on 448 W. Barry Ave. in Chicago, which is the Serbian theatre building." Well... "Vlast" is a play by Branislav Nusic (born 1864, died 1938) that was made into a TV film of the same name back in 1974. A Mira Sremcevic and Ankica Ratarac are associated with the St.Sava Serbian Cultural And Arts Center in Chicago,[7] so it is just possible that our Vladan Nesovic may have appeard in a 2003 revival of that play. But every other search for someone named "Vladan Nesovic" gives only the various Wikipedia mirors, and his social networking sites... such as his Facebook page. The name spelling seems okay, but the fellow just does not have sourcable notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:36, 12 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. It's snowing in May Courcelles 15:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allyson Hennessy[edit]

Allyson Hennessy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable, as the sources just indicate death. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 17:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Hennessy is a veteran news presenter and host in the Trinidad and Tabago community and has received a wide variety of coverage in multiple reliable sources. The New York Times even describes her as a "local television star". Meets WP:GNG. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'd expect online references to be hard to find for Trinidad-based stars, however this reliable source acknowledges her status in the community, albeit weakly. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this is a trinidadian article so i expect it does not have much sources just like other trinidadian articles,she is a very famous person. 190.213.51.85 (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - i agree with all those reasons above and the decision to keep the article :) 744cody (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are lots of quality in-depth sources. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the reasons listed above are clear. There are many sources. Scanlan (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Another source here in Trinidad and Tobago's oldest newspaper. Looks like someone who was much loved by the people she served. If they think she's notable enough for multiple updates on her progress whilst she was ill [8] [9] [10] (including the apparent involvement of the country's Health Minister re blood donation (see ref 2)) then she's notable enough for here. (Would still be nice to get a full obit to flesh out the article a little, though) Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that should have been "see ref 3" Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 00:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She was also awarded the Trinidad & Tobago Publishers and Broadcasters Association’s Award for Media Excellence 2009 (page displays poorly on my browser but she's there). Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 01:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - the article is now well sourced, and she easily meets WP:GNG. Guettarda (talk) 04:11, 12 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. Owen× ☎ 21:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gang Stalking Controversy[edit]

Gang Stalking Controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Highly POV article that draws some drastic original conclusions (i.e. gang stalking is a form of COINTELPRO). Article's author has been trying unsuccessfully to get this information introduced into Wikipedia for several weeks now, and had a similar article deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang Stalking Lawsuit. The article as it stands represents a rather serious fork of the material at Stalking. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• DO NOT DELETE. The term "gang stalking" has numerous meanings, not just one, I grant. There is controversy a-plenty as to whether the term is apt when used to label some of the wide range of phenomena it is used to label. There are certainly people (let us call them "gang stalking deniers") with the theory that the widespread testimony of gang stalking is entirely attributable to persons suffering from paranoia giving false testimony of gang stalking. On the other side, there are those (the COINTELPRO theorists) who theorise that all gang stalking reports are attributable to a renaissance of COINTELPRO. But these observations - the ambiguities, the controversy and the prejudices of vocal minorities, are reasons for having a thorough, scholarly and balanced entry on gang stalking, not reasons for not having an entry at all. The term has become a part of the language, and with good reason. It would diminish Wikipedia to give in to one particular faction, however vocal. Those whom I have called the "gang stalking deniers" would be the only beneficiaries of a deletion of the entry. Given that it has been a long time since the former COINTELPRO inquiries, and the similarities between some gang stalking reports and COINTELPRO crimes of earlier decades, it might also be UNSAFE to suppress the entry. And, deleting the entry would certainly pour fertiliser on the conspiracy theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Allman (talk • contribs) 20:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: this conspiracy POV-pushing has been an ongoing negative trend; note the history of it on Talk:Stalking, leading to emotional outbursts from dozens of IPs, etc. Interestingly enough, the NYT link provided to "evidence" that there is a distinction between psychosis and Gang Stalking paranoia is actually a far more instructive analysis of the mental issues involved, but certainly says nothing at all to substantiate that this is a real problem as opposed to a psychosis or "shared belief system." MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• DO NOT DELETE, opponent arguments FAIL to address how this page does not qualify as a CONTROVERSY. There are clearly strong opinions on both sides.

Furthermore the affidavit by Ted Gunderson does relate Gang Stalking to COINTELPRO. And if not then only that section should be deleted.

The NYT article presents the psychosis point of view because this is a CONTROVERSY, that is what the title says. Advocates for deletion are clearly BIASED and only serve to reinforce the fact that this issue is properly defined as a controversy. --Paulc2 (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC) — Paulc2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete. The few sources used that qualify as reliable do talk about gang stalking, but none of them mention anything about a controversy. Furthermore, we already have an article on cyberstalking. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• DO NOT DELETE: The National Center for Victims of Crime, the largest government funded victims' group is receiving thousands of calls every month complaining about gang stalking nationwide.Italic text'This can be verified ny ANYONE by calling (contact information removed). Surely there is a controversy as to whether there is a shared "delusional system" of countless thousanda of Americans or a COINTELPRO-style social engineering scheme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.217.169 (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC) — 72.89.217.169 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • If the only way to verify the information is to contact the organization directly, then the information quite simply does not meet our guidelines for verifiability. What printed or online reliable source from a third party may we consult to verify the information? Please note that if there's no such source, then we'll have no choice but to side with the government that doesn't want you to know; however, we will not stand in your way when you take your information to Facebook or Twitter. (hint, hint...) -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is no evidence of any notable controversy here, in that no reliable sources have been produced that say that this is anything other than a delusional conspiracy theory. For related discussions about previous attempts to get this rubbish into Wikipedia see Talk:Stalking, WP:Articles for deletion/Gang stalking and WP:articles for deletion/Cause stalking. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• DO NOT DELETE. There is an affidavit of a former FBI Chief on gang stalking. There is a link to a Santa Cruz Police Lieutenant's press conference on gang stalking. There are official D.O.J. documents showing 185,050 Americans stalked by teams or groups of between 2 and 50. Try reading the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.220.7 (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC) — 72.89.220.7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Yup. I've read it all. Nothing that points to a C.O.N.T.R.O.V.E.R.S.Y. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Don’t delete: you may not !vote twice. A controversy is defined as: 1. a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion. 2. contention, strife, or argument.

There is a Federal case pending on this issue. The Judge is expected to rule on it any day.

If the court rules gang stalking is going on then deletion is going to put Wikipedia in a potentially embarrassing position.

The opponents here are irrationally biased therefore should not be taken seriously. --Paulc2 (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there's nothing more than a court case to point to the existence of a dispute, then I think Wikipedia should take its chances with the possible embarassment. Otherwise, every instance of someone fighting a speeding ticket would warrant a Wikipedia article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Real professional for Wiki Editors to censor a pro-article user from voting twice when anti-article users are posting four times. What percentage of Wiki Editors are salaried government employees? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.218.64 (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't vote multiple times, but you may add to the discussion without voting. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence for actual existence of the topic , at least as presented in the article. Not even a notable conspiracy theory. Amounts to publicity for the PI involved, and nothing more. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This belongs to cyberstalking. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 04:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete:'Bold textNot even a notable conspiracy theory?Italic text'Have you looked at the Hundreds of Thousands of Google search hits for "organized stalking", "group stalking", "gang stalking" and similar terms. Are you a joker? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.220.161 (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC) — 72.89.220.161 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Speedy delete. This contrived controversy is a smoke screen intended to distract brainwashed mind control victims from the prize, going into the Bioethics Commission hearing two days from today, where many mind control victims will be testifying. There is no such thing as gang stalking; it's an illusion created through brainwashing. MoreAwakeThanYou (talk) 20:54, 16 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. Courcelles 00:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Stein[edit]

Pamela Stein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(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 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) 02:04, 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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 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) 14:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this was the lady whose centerfold appeared in the film Die Hard.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any more trivia about her? --Damiens.rf 16:08, 9 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, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:45, 9 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect/merge to the appropriate list. Assuming that she doesn't meet the WP:GNG that is. As a former playboy playmate, her name is a plausible search term, and having a redlink for such an obviously plausible search term is unacceptable. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• merge/redirect no evidence of multiple reliable sources with significant coverage beyond X is a Y that was Z. In this case "she was a woman that was a playboy bunny." And to carrite: I agree that mass deletions are troubling however that points to the need for a mass deletion policy, we need not keep all the bathwater only for fear of throwing out a baby, we can look at the article and make a reasoned decision. HominidMachinae (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep This nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [11]. Monty₈₄₅ 02:25, 14 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. Courcelles 00:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicki Thomas[edit]

Nicki Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(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]

• 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) 01:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 14:58, 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) 14:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Carrite.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:49, 5 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, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:46, 9 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect/merge to the appropriate list. Assuming that she doesn't meet the WP:GNG that is. As a former playboy playmate, her name is a plausible search term, and having a redlink for such an obviously plausible search term is unacceptable. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect/merge to the appropriate list. Not enough coverage in reliable sources for a biography. Off2riorob (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [12]. Monty₈₄₅ 03:16, 14 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 1989. Courcelles 00:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Petra Verkaik[edit]

Petra Verkaik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(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 01:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1989. 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) 03:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Hullaballoo. --John (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Not enough coverage to require an individual article. Epbr123 (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 15:20, 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) 19:32, 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]

• 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]
• Delete per Dekkapai. Not notable as a Playmate, and not enough significant coverage in reliable sources to justify an article. I would be opposed to redirecting/merging to a list. Robofish (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Has sufficient coverage beyond playmatehood. See cites about recent study I just added that showed she is one of the top 10 most searched playmates on the internet (at #5).--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • She's mentioned on passage, together with other playmates, in an article about her playmatehood. --Damiens.rf 14:18, 9 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect/merge to the appropriate list. Assuming that she doesn't meet the WP:GNG that is. As a former playboy playmate, her name is a plausible search term, and having a redlink for such an obviously plausible search term is unacceptable. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep This nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [13]. Monty₈₄₅ 02:27, 14 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 1999. Courcelles 00:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cara Wakelin[edit]

Cara Wakelin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(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 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) 03:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1999. Has some coverage, but not enough for an individual article. Epbr123 (talk) 10:45, 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]

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]

• 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]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect/merge to the appropriate list. Assuming that she doesn't meet the WP:GNG that is. As a former playboy playmate, her name is a plausible search term, and having a redlink for such an obviously plausible search term is unacceptable. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [14]. Monty₈₄₅ 03:17, 14 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. Courcelles 00:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Welch[edit]

Lisa Welch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(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 01:58, 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) 03:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect No significant coverage found. Epbr123 (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 15:23, 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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 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) 14:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per comments at first AfD, mainstream appearances are sufficient to cross notability threshold applying apparently current "standards" for playmate articles.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • First afd was no consensus and all keep votes were assuming she had enough of a career as an actress, which, unless I'm missing something, she doesn't. --Damiens.rf 14:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• In your opinion, of course, as someone who has nominated a slew of playmate articles for deletion and a bunch of them have been kept.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:36, 9 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect/merge to the appropriate list. Assuming that she doesn't meet the WP:GNG that is. As a former playboy playmate, her name is a plausible search term, and having a redlink for such an obviously plausible search term is unacceptable. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep This nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [15]. Monty₈₄₅ 02:28, 14 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 1998. Courcelles 00:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kimber West[edit]

Kimber West (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(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 01:59, 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) 03:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect No significant coverage found. Epbr123 (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 15:23, 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) 19:30, 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 - Two articles about her eight years apart. [16] about her playmatehood. [17] about her and her boutique (although you would have to see behind the paywall). Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:08, 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) 14:14, 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect/merge to the appropriate list. Assuming that she doesn't meet the WP:GNG that is. As a former playboy playmate, her name is a plausible search term, and having a redlink for such an obviously plausible search term is unacceptable. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [18]. Monty₈₄₅ 03:17, 14 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. Procedural keep because the nomination and subsequent discussion is tainted by the noms topic ban. can be immediately relisted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Westcott[edit]

Carrie Westcott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(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 01:59, 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) 03:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Not enough coverage to require an individual article. Epbr123 (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 15:24, 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) 19:30, 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) 20:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - Despite ironic non-hometown article[19], that's the extent of the what seems like non-trivial coverage and it's behind a paywall so I can't gauge its depth.

• 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) 14:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Unlike some of the recently redirected playmate articles, this one does seem to have more coverage out there. (Including hosting a show on MTV, see billboard ref added to article to confirm it, and B-movie starring roles, see NY times ref added to article.)--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:18, 9 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect/merge to the appropriate list. Assuming that she doesn't meet the WP:GNG that is. As a former playboy playmate, her name is a plausible search term, and having a redlink for such an obviously plausible search term is unacceptable. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [20]. Monty₈₄₅ 03:17, 14 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 1989. Courcelles 00:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Wood[edit]

Laurie Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(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 02:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1989. 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) 03:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 15:25, 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) 19:30, 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) 20:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - What seems like the only significant coverage is behind a paywall. [21] Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:54, 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) 14:12, 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect/merge to the appropriate list. Assuming that she doesn't meet the WP:GNG that is. As a former playboy playmate, her name is a plausible search term, and having a redlink for such an obviously plausible search term is unacceptable. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [22]. Monty₈₄₅ 03:18, 14 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. Courcelles 00:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Wood[edit]

Nicole Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(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 02:08, 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) 03:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 15:26, 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) 19:30, 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) 14:12, 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect/merge to the appropriate list. Assuming that she doesn't meet the WP:GNG that is. As a former playboy playmate, her name is a plausible search term, and having a redlink for such an obviously plausible search term is unacceptable. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [23]. Monty₈₄₅ 03:18, 14 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. Courcelles 00:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Greenberg[edit]

Sandy Greenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(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 02:31, 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) 17:49, 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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 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) 14:05, 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect/merge to the appropriate list. Assuming that she doesn't meet the WP:GNG that is. As a former playboy playmate, her name is a plausible search term, and having a redlink for such an obviously plausible search term is unacceptable. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [24]. Monty₈₄₅ 03:18, 14 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. Procedural keep because the nomination and subsequent discussion is tainted by the noms topic ban. can be immediately relisted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Hammer[edit]

Jaime Hammer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(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 02:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete She was never actually Playboy Playmate of the Month, which is about where I draw the line. She earned many recognitions that are a slight cut below. Hard to give any other credible reason for a keep.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - An in depth profile from the Phoenix New Times [25] in addition to numerous other coverage in reliable sources leaves no question as to her notability. BelloWello (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • An Arizona newspaper interviewed the Arizona playmate by the time she appeared on Playboy's cover. We can safely expect this to happen to almost every playmate. This is the kind of playmatehood coveragethat I predicted on the nomination.
  • Among those numerous other coverage in reliable sources you know, can you show us some of the non-trivial ones? They would justify keeping biography. --Damiens.rf 06:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a Playmate, but a Playboy "special editions" model, Penthouse Pet, and not-quite-hardcore-porn(yet) performer who doesn't have any coverage to satisfy WP:PORNBIO, WP:ENT, or the GNG (yet). The "in-depth" profile contains very little non-trivial information about the model, especially compared to the amount of kvetching she does about how little Playboy actually paid her. (It also reports her claim she would never pose for Penthouse, and we can see how accurate that was . . . ) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:46, 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]

• 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) 14:04, 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect/merge to the appropriate list. Assuming that she doesn't meet the WP:GNG that is. As a former playboy playmate, her name is a plausible search term, and having a redlink for such an obviously plausible search term is unacceptable. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [26]. Monty₈₄₅ 03:18, 14 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. Procedural keep because the nomination and subsequent discussion is tainted by the noms topic ban. can be immediately relisted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corinna Harney[edit]

Corinna Harney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(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 02:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Between google news hits, and movie appearances already in article, this person is clearly notable. Article needs improvement with additional references, not deletion. Monty₈₄₅ 03:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may be missing something, but I don't think we can write an article from what I see on her Google News search. Did you find many non-trivial mentions? --Damiens.rf 04:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Several of those articles appear to be substantive coverage, but they are behind pay-walls. Monty₈₄₅ 04:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [27], so keep for that reason as well. Monty₈₄₅ 03:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1991. 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) 17:36, 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) 19:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Playmate of the Year is a well-known award satisfying criteria 1 of WP:PORNBIO. Several mainstream credits including starring role in The Road Home (2003 film) satisfies criteria 4 of PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:33, 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) 20:49, 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) 14:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lacks the necessary significant coverage in reliable sources to meet our notability standards. TerriersFan (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Morbidthoughts. Playmate of the Year is sufficient for notability. We used to have a bright line rule that all playmates were notable so as to avoid excess wasted time on AfD. Now we enjoy wasting time on these AfDs, but at least we should set the bar here to avoid continued waste of time. None of this content is going to be deleted regardless of where it resides.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:38, 8 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect/merge to the appropriate list. Assuming that she doesn't meet the WP:GNG that is. As a former playboy playmate, her name is a plausible search term, and having a redlink for such an obviously plausible search term is unacceptable. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:37, 9 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.