The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As its encyclopedic content is unverifiable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Playpen (fictional magazine)[edit]

There is no source that confirm this is the same fictional magazine and not just a prop being used over and over.The only sources in the article is a forum post and a blog. I found something on lostpedia that mentioned Sawyer had this magazine. As a fansite wiki, I don't think you can use that as a reliable source and it still dosn't confirm anything. Even if this is a real fictional magazine, I do not see the notability in it. --Coasttocoast (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable trivia in any case. Might be worth a mention in Playboy if a source can be found...but only if it's willing to take off its front cover. (Real fictional magazine? As opposed to a fictional fictional one?) Clarityfiend (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was: Is this a real Hollywood inside joke, or is it just a coincidence. Theres no sources at all to say it is.Wikipedia:Verifiability. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It probably is a mild inside joke, the minced oath version of referring to Playboy without incurring Standards & Practices or trademark pushback. But I can't find a single source about it other than a few trivial references that confirm its usage on certain TV shows. --Dhartung | Talk 23:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only source I'm seeing (and this would be difficult to search) is the blog cited in the article, leaving us with no reliable sources and hence possible WP:OR. We do have List of fictional magazines that mentions this; I'd think some notes in that article would cover this nicely. AnturiaethwrTalk 23:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are sorces for all most all the shows sighted there called episodes and are essey to varify if you watch them. I have usded this list as a recorce in the past, and Playpen has been fetuerd promenently in several shows I would say it is pretty notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafff18 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe citing the episodes themselves is original research. Basically the entire article is OR like the line "The name is a contraction of Playboy and Penthouse." This magazine's existence isn't even confirmed. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 04:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing the episosds is a primary source not OR and are easily verifyable. if you want confermation of its existence just look at one of the 30 episodes sighted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafff18 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we need secondary sources to establish notability, not primary ones. If the conclusions in the article must be gleaned by the reader from primary sources, then it counts as OR. AnturiaethwrTalk 19:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could link a dozens of examples of it being mentioned of of different shows (there are not hard to find), but I know that you would just claim that they are OR like you clame everything is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafff18 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theres still isn't even a source that proves this is a real hollywood inside joke, thats whats OR. Just look at the first sentence: "Playpen is a fictional pornographic magazine often depicted or mentioned in television programs, films and other media." Wheres the source for that? -- Coasttocoast (talk) 02:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here are a few sources for you about the name http://www.tv.com/pacific-blue/seduced/episode/43517/summary.html which should be obvios. and heres a link to a forum post talking about it http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/after-hours-lounge/150233-playpen-magazine.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafff18 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, forum posts are not good sources, and I'm fairly sure TV.com is all user-submitted content; as such, neither of those really establishes notability. See WP:SPS for more information. AnturiaethwrTalk 18:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Tv.com is a site where Anyone can add information. And if you look at this page under "notes"[1] It looks like it was added by Rafff18, just so he can link it to this AFD. So thats the perfect example of how Tv.com is not a reliable site since anyone can add information. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2008 (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.