Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:09, 26 August 2011

Stephanie Adams

• Articles for deletion/Stephanie Adams
• Articles for deletion/Stephanie Adams (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Stephanie Adams (3rd nomination)

Stephanie Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This article was a Speedy Keep back in 2006, when Playboy centerfold subjects were presumed notable per se. Consensus has shifted on this matter. The only legitimate notability "hook" beyond that is that this was touted as the first self-identified lesbian Playboy centerfold. 'Cept now she's engaged to an individual of the male persuasion, I understand from a very brief internet search, putting the lie to that. What else ya got? She's written a couple non-notable books on astrology. Copious simple Google hits on the basis of her being a Playmate and having used the L-word, allegedly, but if you take that away, you've got............a non-notable subject of a highly contentious biography. Carrite (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Redirect to the list of playmates. Off2riorob (talk) 04:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Since the first debate page was blanked and the talk page blanked, here is the nomination and the two arguments which the closing administrator consulted before ruling Speedy Keep in 2006:

(Old nom) Stephanie Adams Was nominated for speedy by User:JuliannaRoseMauriello with the reason "Non Notable Person using Misplaced Pages to Advertise a Business. Possible Libelous comments regarding sexuality preference of several people. VANITY, BIO. Nothing verifiable except by poster GODDESSY and only verified via a website she owns." I thought I'd let the community decide. No vote (for now at least). Petros471 20:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

(1) Speedy Keep per WP:BIO, pretty much every playmate seems to get a page eventually. The speedy is because this is a content dispute & malformed nom...it should be treated as such. User:JuliannaRoseMauriello should be warned against WP:POINT nominations. User:GODDESSY should be warned about WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:OWN (again), and vandalism by removing deletion tags. Both have broken 3RR. Both should be prohibited from editing this article again. User:GODDESSY seems to be asking for another ban and should be dealt with accordingly.--Isotope23 20:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

(2) Speedy Keep as per Isotope23. Appears to be a content dispute between subject and nominator. The subject's actual notability does not appear to be in question, nor are her basic biographical facts. NPOV issues can be dealt with in cleanup, and as Isotope23 notes, both parties should be prohibited from editing the article. MCB 20:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the actual notability of the subject was never investigated — this was ruled a bad faith nomination on the basis of a content dispute. I contend that this subject fails Notability Guidelines once the aspects of her Playmate hood and sexual preference are removed. Carrite (talk) 04:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There was a feeler on the articles' talk page quite recently: Talk:Stephanie Adams#Notability. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: i still don't understand what's negative about someone being gay or even thinking they were gay at some point. here we have an intersection between recent history of playmate afds (many merged into the year articles w/no content deletion) and an article over which battle is being done between the article subject, a weird obssessed editor, and rob's mix of blp vandalism protection and unclear feelings about articles mentioning sexual preference. should be a fun afd. result will likely be redirect to list article, so maybe we can keep it short.--Milowent • 05:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • That's only the begging of the problems with that article, check the talk page archives. The article has been a battleground since forever. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I too don't understand how it's negative, but apparently the biographee is most indignant about it and this is wearing out OTRS volunteers. (Alleged negativity aside, I don't understand how it is or was significant.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. It's clear that we cannot that biography right; we've been failing at that for some 5 years, so it clearly fails WP:BLP. Now ask yourselves: is there any education program where this biography would be required or even recommended reading? I can't fathom one. The disruption (e.g. the legal threats) and editor time spent in endless discussions, including OTRS requests galore, thus far outweigh any benefits. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • There are many playmates that are a great deal less noteworthy than Adams, yet they still have complete articles on here. Obviously all playmates are noteworthy to Misplaced Pages and to remove one that is noteworthy would mean to remove most of them that aren't. OnlyGodTheFatherKnows (talk) 08:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC) — OnlyGodTheFatherKnows (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Stricken: user is a blocked sockpuppet. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Classic example of WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ALLORNOTHING. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Adams has kept herself in the public eye during the 19 years since she became a Playmate. Among other things, she was named New York's "Best lesbian sex symbol" of 2004 by the Village Voice; taught a course at The Learning Annex which was reviewed in the New York Press; and sued the New York Police Department for $5 million for alleged use of excessive force. As an alternative, merge to List of Playboy Playmates of 1992 as is standard procedure for Playboy Playmates who don't have individual articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Except you're not going to be able to put any of those allegedly notable events in the article per OTRS and legal threats; check the talk page archives. So, it fails BLP; the sources you have provided are unusable. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • (1) "Best lesbian sex symbol": please see this. (2) Learning Annex: She taught one course, she screwed up (or so I read). Yes, columnists had fun with this, but it was one course, one time. Give her a break, or agree that it's insignificant. (3) The taxi altercation doesn't seem that big of a deal to me either, but yes, it's a matter of great concern to her. (More OTRS appeals, I suppose; though I'm not privy to these. Look at the talk page archives.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Due to the OTRS issues, I would now switch to just recommending a redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1992 as would be standard procedure for Playboy Playmates who don't have individual articles. Just a pure redirect, though, not a "delete and then redirect". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

*Keep. Adams has her lawsuit and the numerous links from media sources including Associated Press listed throughout her web sites, so surely she has no objection to it being mentioned on Misplaced Pages and it was on here for some time before someone deleted it. Someone also deleted her guardianship case, which also made news and is also mentioned in her press release, so surely she has no objection to that public information and for some odd reason, that was deleted in her article too. These facts are more noteworthy and were more in the news than her sexual orientation, which is not a big deal really anymore because people "come out" all the time now. And what happened to her being listed in the news as one of "the 50 top eligible females in NYC" after her first divorce? That was news way before her "coming out" and Raoul Felder was in the news with her because he was her high profile divorce lawyer. I say, add those mentionings back in her personal life section and include more mentionings of her being an activist on the gay community, which is also mentioned in her own biography, then it would be acceptable. OnlyGodTheFatherKnows (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC) — OnlyGodTheFatherKnows (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User is a blocked sockpuppet. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Remove despite possible notability - the OTRS removals make this an article unwise to keep. Collect (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect; whilst a case can be made for some level of notability, I think editorially this article should be redirected for the time being. And perhaps be revisited in the future. The subject is consistently unhappy with the material and talk page comments - and editors are similarly unhappy with the OTRS removals (there are years of OTRS issues, and that is just the tip of the iceberg). No one is satisfied, and at some point I think we just have to turn round and say "lets leave it for now, and have a fresh start sometime in the future". Nothing is lost by waiting. --Errant 08:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect to List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_1992#November where a potted bio is already available, and protect this title. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1992#November and lock-Fasttimes68 (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1992#November despite claims of some sort of notability: the biographee first wants the article one way, later another; simply, her demand to own the article wastes editors' time that is better spent elsewhere. If people want to find out more about SA they can always use a search engine. -- Hoary (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect When notability is borderline, as it seems to be here, we should always try to do the right thing if an article is causing a subject undue stress. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect I think that if she wants the page removed, we may as well remove it. Now, were she an elected official or major celebrity, I would be inclined to retain our coverage despite her wishes. However, until she is elected to Congress or breaks into the New York Times Bestseller list... lacking a page on her won't be a major loss to the project. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Where did you learn that the subject wants the page removed? --Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - My understanding is that the original page was started by the subject and an edit war ensued over its alleged promotional intent, relating to the subject's website, not her Playboy appearance. During the scuffle 3RR was violated by the subject and the chief critic and both seem to have been issued indefinite blocks as a result. In the meantime, the article took on a life of its own, which caused the subject to become quite irate. That's neither here nor there from my perspective, but there are those who feel WP should accommodate the desires of BLP subjects as best we're able. My point is that Playboy centerfold objects are not inherently notable, that the main case for encyclopedia-worthiness beyond that, relating to purported "First Lesbian Centerfold" status has been belied by her current heterosexual engagement, and that if one disregards these things, one is left with a non-notable blog author who has written a couple non-notable books, failing GNG. The easiest way to clean up what is clearly a festering BLP problem is to blow this biography away — on the basis of principle, not the whims of the subject. Carrite (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Your understanding is wrong. The person in this article did not start her own page. Misplaced Pages editors did. She has her own web site that shows up first on Bing when you look up her name, so people can read everything about her there. Just like some of you have your sources, my sources tell me that she didn't demand the page be deleted or redirected. She said the page could remain, but be edited by professional people that are accurate, objective, and respectable. That was clearly not something that was always done, judging from the discussion page that was blanked but can still be viewed if you look at the edit history. 173.56.121.76 (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC) user is a blocked sock puppet

According to the edit history, User:HipsterDad created the article in 2005. He has not edited in over a year and a half. FWIW, a lot of the articles he created were Playboy bunnies. I don't know anything about your sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That's true; the problems with promotion came later from numerous WP:SPAs, just a small sample . FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

"Yes, the beautiful, successful, lovable, millionaire playboy playmate, Stephanie Adams in charge." I'm not making this up. -- Hoary (talk) 03:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Redirect --JN466 19:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Redirect. Delete the page and replace it with a redirect, the same as has been done with other names listed at List of Playboy Playmates of 1992 for which we do not articles. Msnicki (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect. I agree with others.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete if the article is currently kept in its currently promotional state. Keep if reliably-sourced negative criticism is restored (in an NPOV manner) to punish conflict of interest. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 05:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Uh, let me get this right. You're saying that in its current form, the article is promotional, but you're suggesting reliably sourced negative criticism should be restored (in an NPOV manner) in order to punish COI? If I've got that right, well ... I'm unaware of any policy or guideline recommending "WP:RETRIBUTION"; please rethink. -- Hoary (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates