| Revision as of 19:44, 16 March 2007 editTabercil (talk | contribs)Administrators36,090 edits →[]: vote← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:52, 16 March 2007 edit undoDismas (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers79,891 editsm →[]: WP:CIVILNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| *****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) | |||
| *'''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) | ||
Revision as of 19:52, 16 March 2007
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)
- Keep and I concur with Dismas and AnonEMouse's arguments above. Tabercil 19:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)