| Revision as of 19:44, 16 March 2007 editTabercil (talk | contribs)Administrators36,090 edits →[]: vote← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:55, 30 January 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Added missing end tags to discussion close footer to reduce Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (18 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. '' | |||
| <!--Template:Afd top | |||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | |||
| The result was '''keep'''. ] ] 13:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|B}} | |||
| :{{la|Liz Stewart}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | :{{la|Liz Stewart}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | ||
| Not notable. Does not pass ] as she has not been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. ] 13:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC) | Not notable. Does not pass ] as she has not been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. ] 13:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Line 16: | Line 22: | ||
| *****If you do as has been suggested and put 25, 50, 100, etc. Playmates and Pets up for deletion then you are creating a large disturbance to the encyclopedia in general. Although, if you take up the discussion at ] and ] and then come to a decision, that would produce minimal disturbance. Then whatever decision was reached could be carried out. Additionally, mass deletion votes are inherently hard to handle and slog through because when people put up more than a couple pages for deletion, the voters have to slog through each article and most will say something like "I think articles A, C, and G should be deleted but articles B, D-F, and H-Z should be kept due to...." Then the person who closes the AFD has to write down all the article titles, and count each vote for each one. It's just a mess. I also do not suggest carrying out that campaign, as AnonEMouse said. <span style="font-family:monospace;">]</span>|] 19:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC) | *****If you do as has been suggested and put 25, 50, 100, etc. Playmates and Pets up for deletion then you are creating a large disturbance to the encyclopedia in general. Although, if you take up the discussion at ] and ] and then come to a decision, that would produce minimal disturbance. Then whatever decision was reached could be carried out. Additionally, mass deletion votes are inherently hard to handle and slog through because when people put up more than a couple pages for deletion, the voters have to slog through each article and most will say something like "I think articles A, C, and G should be deleted but articles B, D-F, and H-Z should be kept due to...." Then the person who closes the AFD has to write down all the article titles, and count each vote for each one. It's just a mess. I also do not suggest carrying out that campaign, as AnonEMouse said. <span style="font-family:monospace;">]</span>|] 19:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Strong Delete''' Just because some whore rejects God's law and takes off her clothes for a magazine doesn't make her notable. --] 19:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC) | *'''Strong Delete''' Just because some whore rejects God's law and takes off her clothes for a magazine doesn't make her notable. --] 19:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| **I'd like to remind you of ]. I'd also like to remind you that this is not a Christian, Muslim, Norse, Jewish, or any other religious affiliation's encyclopedia, so "God's law" doesn't hold water here. <span style="font-family:monospace;">]</span>|] 19:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***Agreed. If you're looking for a place where "God's law" holds weight, I would suggest going to ]. ] 20:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ****Thank you, I'll go there. --] 21:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *****Well so much for Conservapedia being more in line with my views. They banned me for saying Christianity is the one true religion . I'm going to stay here with my good friends on Misplaced Pages. --] 21:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' and I concur with Dismas and AnonEMouse's arguments above. ] 19:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' and I concur with Dismas and AnonEMouse's arguments above. ] 19:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' - passes ], and the sources for her are probably out there if you look. Yes, I know the burden of proof is the other way, but looking costs nothing. ] <sup> ]</sup> 22:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete'''. Not notable and all the non-trivial info is un-refed. ] 06:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' Multiple media appearances and reliable sourcing. Clearly passes ]. She's a celebrity, this is not a vanity page. It's becoming pretty obvious there's some time-wasting ]-making going on in this recent outbreak of AfDs. Sources on pornographic subject are being labled 'unreliable' because they deal in pornography. Does this law apply to other fields as well? Articles on a historical figure are 'unreliable' if they appear in a historical journal? ] 18:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **Porn mags are not independant and reliable sources. ] 18:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***Your ] can't be that porn mags are not independent and reliable sources for non-porn subjects, because this is not a non-porn subject. No, your ] appears to be that a model's appearance in a porn mag is not reliable evidence of a model's appearance in a porn mag, since it is these appearances which establish her notability. I guess you're saying we need a reliable secondary source-- the ] maybe-- which states that a particular model appeared in such-and-such a porn mag, because her actual appearance in such-and-such a porn mag is not reliable evidence of her appearance in such-and-such a porn mag. So we have secondary sources in the external links section which document her appearances. Ah, but those sources-- even though they are appropriate for non-porn subjects-- are not reliable when they deal with porn subjects. OK, ] taken. Enough time wasted. Now back to real editing... ] 19:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ****I'm just following the guidelines. ]. ] 14:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *****"]" does not require us to play dumb, Epbr123. And a sudden outbreak of mass AfDs in one category, on some articles that have been around for a couple of years raises obvious suspicions. ] 17:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ****** Calm please, calm. Epbr123 hasn't followed through on the threat to nominate hundreds of Playmate articles, my long spiel was restricted to that. Nominating a dozen pornographic model or performer articles is certainly a trend, but not on that level of disruption. This is a legitimate area, but not the most cited area in the encyclopedia, and at least some of the nominations do seem to be generally supported and warranted. He's also not citing God's law as a reason for deletion. (!). I don't agree with the apparently tautological premise that porn mags are not reliable because they deal with porn (!) but I'm willing to assume good faith in general. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC) I'm also impressed by his willingness to change his own mind at ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ******* God's Law? That an official policy or a guideline? ] 18:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ******* Sure, I'm willing to assume good faith. But when I now find a couple more AfDs that have gone under the ] radar, and then come up with a ] recently started by this nominator who professes such concern for sourcing... Well, I act in good faith by labelling it "Unsourced," and NOT nominating it for AfD. ] 19:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * <span style="font-size: smaller;">Note: This debate has been added to the ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)</span> | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> | |||
Latest revision as of 13:55, 30 January 2022
- 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. Veinor 13:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Liz Stewart
Not notable. Does not pass WP:BIO as she has not been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Epbr123 13:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep She passes WP:PORNBIO easily per criteria #1 "(including feature of the month in these magazines)" by having been a Playmate of the Month. Dismas| 15:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- WP:PORNBIO specifically states that criterion on its own does not establish notability. She fails the central notability criterion, which is that the subject has been covered by multiple sources which are independent of the article subject and are reliable. Epbr123 16:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- So do you propose going through all the Playmate articles as well as all the Penthouse Pet articles to do a mass deletion? Dismas| 16:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- WP:PORNBIO specifically states that criterion on its own does not establish notability. She fails the central notability criterion, which is that the subject has been covered by multiple sources which are independent of the article subject and are reliable. Epbr123 16:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. She has appeared on special editions of Playboy. The fact that she has an IMDb entry just seals the deal, in my opinion. ShutterBugTrekker 17:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- WP:PORNBIO states that an IMDb entry does not establish notability. Epbr123 18:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Note that she has appeared many times in different publications, even if they are by the same company. It's a very notable publisher, and not that influenced by her personally. Between that, and the half dozen articles on her design press page, , that should be enough. We've apparently got a complete set of Category:Playboy Playmates, and they do in general get sufficient press. I really wouldn't recommend going after them the way the nominator proposes, that would verge on disruption to make a point. --AnonEMouse 18:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Models are not indepedent of the magazines they work for. Epbr123 19:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- WP:POINT is the guideline that I believe you're thinking of. Dismas| 18:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- How does WP:POINT apply? Epbr123 18:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Community consensus has consistently kept Playboy Playmates as notable, over several years and a fair number of nominations. That's what stuck the criterion in WP:PORNBIO. Nothing has recently occurred to significantly change that. They have a good bit of structure (just look at that category I linked - subcats, templates, lists...). There are quite a lot of them; nominating them is likely to be disruptive due to sheer numbers if nothing else. Going after them one at a time does seem as if it could be trying to make a point. I may have missed something - is there a directive from Jimbo that Playmates are out? Has there been any similar precedent? If nothing like that has occurred, I wouldn't recommend a campaign. --AnonEMouse 19:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you do as has been suggested and put 25, 50, 100, etc. Playmates and Pets up for deletion then you are creating a large disturbance to the encyclopedia in general. Although, if you take up the discussion at WP:PORN and WP:PORNBIO and then come to a decision, that would produce minimal disturbance. Then whatever decision was reached could be carried out. Additionally, mass deletion votes are inherently hard to handle and slog through because when people put up more than a couple pages for deletion, the voters have to slog through each article and most will say something like "I think articles A, C, and G should be deleted but articles B, D-F, and H-Z should be kept due to...." Then the person who closes the AFD has to write down all the article titles, and count each vote for each one. It's just a mess. I also do not suggest carrying out that campaign, as AnonEMouse said. Dismas| 19:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Community consensus has consistently kept Playboy Playmates as notable, over several years and a fair number of nominations. That's what stuck the criterion in WP:PORNBIO. Nothing has recently occurred to significantly change that. They have a good bit of structure (just look at that category I linked - subcats, templates, lists...). There are quite a lot of them; nominating them is likely to be disruptive due to sheer numbers if nothing else. Going after them one at a time does seem as if it could be trying to make a point. I may have missed something - is there a directive from Jimbo that Playmates are out? Has there been any similar precedent? If nothing like that has occurred, I wouldn't recommend a campaign. --AnonEMouse 19:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- How does WP:POINT apply? Epbr123 18:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete Just because some whore rejects God's law and takes off her clothes for a magazine doesn't make her notable. --Evergreens78 19:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to remind you of WP:CIVIL. I'd also like to remind you that this is not a Christian, Muslim, Norse, Jewish, or any other religious affiliation's encyclopedia, so "God's law" doesn't hold water here. Dismas| 19:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. If you're looking for a place where "God's law" holds weight, I would suggest going to Conservapedia. Tabercil 20:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, I'll go there. --Evergreens78 21:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well so much for Conservapedia being more in line with my views. They banned me for saying Christianity is the one true religion . I'm going to stay here with my good friends on Misplaced Pages. --Evergreens78 21:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, I'll go there. --Evergreens78 21:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. If you're looking for a place where "God's law" holds weight, I would suggest going to Conservapedia. Tabercil 20:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to remind you of WP:CIVIL. I'd also like to remind you that this is not a Christian, Muslim, Norse, Jewish, or any other religious affiliation's encyclopedia, so "God's law" doesn't hold water here. Dismas| 19:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and I concur with Dismas and AnonEMouse's arguments above. Tabercil 19:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - passes WP:PORNBIO, and the sources for her are probably out there if you look. Yes, I know the burden of proof is the other way, but looking costs nothing. Moreschi 22:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable and all the non-trivial info is un-refed. NBeale 06:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Multiple media appearances and reliable sourcing. Clearly passes WP:Bio. She's a celebrity, this is not a vanity page. It's becoming pretty obvious there's some time-wasting WP:POINT-making going on in this recent outbreak of AfDs. Sources on pornographic subject are being labled 'unreliable' because they deal in pornography. Does this law apply to other fields as well? Articles on a historical figure are 'unreliable' if they appear in a historical journal? Dekkappai 18:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Porn mags are not independant and reliable sources. Epbr123 18:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Your POINT can't be that porn mags are not independent and reliable sources for non-porn subjects, because this is not a non-porn subject. No, your POINT appears to be that a model's appearance in a porn mag is not reliable evidence of a model's appearance in a porn mag, since it is these appearances which establish her notability. I guess you're saying we need a reliable secondary source-- the Britannica maybe-- which states that a particular model appeared in such-and-such a porn mag, because her actual appearance in such-and-such a porn mag is not reliable evidence of her appearance in such-and-such a porn mag. So we have secondary sources in the external links section which document her appearances. Ah, but those sources-- even though they are appropriate for non-porn subjects-- are not reliable when they deal with porn subjects. OK, POINT taken. Enough time wasted. Now back to real editing... Dekkappai 19:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm just following the guidelines. WP:AGF. Epbr123 14:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- "Assume Good Faith" does not require us to play dumb, Epbr123. And a sudden outbreak of mass AfDs in one category, on some articles that have been around for a couple of years raises obvious suspicions. Dekkappai 17:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Calm please, calm. Epbr123 hasn't followed through on the threat to nominate hundreds of Playmate articles, my long spiel was restricted to that. Nominating a dozen pornographic model or performer articles is certainly a trend, but not on that level of disruption. This is a legitimate area, but not the most cited area in the encyclopedia, and at least some of the nominations do seem to be generally supported and warranted. He's also not citing God's law as a reason for deletion. (!). I don't agree with the apparently tautological premise that porn mags are not reliable because they deal with porn (!) but I'm willing to assume good faith in general. --AnonEMouse 18:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC) I'm also impressed by his willingness to change his own mind at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alicia Rhodes (2nd nomination). --AnonEMouse 18:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- God's Law? That an official policy or a guideline? Dekkappai 18:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, I'm willing to assume good faith. But when I now find a couple more AfDs that have gone under the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Porn stars/Deletion radar, and then come up with a totally unsourced stub recently started by this nominator who professes such concern for sourcing... Well, I act in good faith by labelling it "Unsourced," and NOT nominating it for AfD. Dekkappai 19:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Calm please, calm. Epbr123 hasn't followed through on the threat to nominate hundreds of Playmate articles, my long spiel was restricted to that. Nominating a dozen pornographic model or performer articles is certainly a trend, but not on that level of disruption. This is a legitimate area, but not the most cited area in the encyclopedia, and at least some of the nominations do seem to be generally supported and warranted. He's also not citing God's law as a reason for deletion. (!). I don't agree with the apparently tautological premise that porn mags are not reliable because they deal with porn (!) but I'm willing to assume good faith in general. --AnonEMouse 18:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC) I'm also impressed by his willingness to change his own mind at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alicia Rhodes (2nd nomination). --AnonEMouse 18:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- "Assume Good Faith" does not require us to play dumb, Epbr123. And a sudden outbreak of mass AfDs in one category, on some articles that have been around for a couple of years raises obvious suspicions. Dekkappai 17:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm just following the guidelines. WP:AGF. Epbr123 14:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Your POINT can't be that porn mags are not independent and reliable sources for non-porn subjects, because this is not a non-porn subject. No, your POINT appears to be that a model's appearance in a porn mag is not reliable evidence of a model's appearance in a porn mag, since it is these appearances which establish her notability. I guess you're saying we need a reliable secondary source-- the Britannica maybe-- which states that a particular model appeared in such-and-such a porn mag, because her actual appearance in such-and-such a porn mag is not reliable evidence of her appearance in such-and-such a porn mag. So we have secondary sources in the external links section which document her appearances. Ah, but those sources-- even though they are appropriate for non-porn subjects-- are not reliable when they deal with porn subjects. OK, POINT taken. Enough time wasted. Now back to real editing... Dekkappai 19:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Porn mags are not independant and reliable sources. Epbr123 18:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. AnonEMouse 18:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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.