Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Miller (model)

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) 04:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Miller (model)[edit]

(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 03:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a Playmate, but a Playboy online model; most such "Cyber Girls" have already been deleted as, by consensus, not notable. The only substantial independent coverage cited is a profile in the hometown newspaper, and that isn't enough to demonstrate notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:37, 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) 21:07, 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) 13:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nom seems erroneous, she was never a playmate. Coverage out there seems at least barely meet GNG.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you point us to such GNG meeting coverage? --Damiens.rf 20:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to the research you did when nominating 100 articles for deletion in one hours's time to determine the subject was not notable? Yes, I am upset.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to avoid addressing my challenges. In regard to your question, while I took one hour to post all afds, I have been researching them waaay before posting the first nomination. It's naive to consider only my log's timestamp. But this discussion has become counterproductive already. --Damiens.rf 22:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you're free to avoid addressing my challenges. Fapping is not research.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carrite. Nom says 'us' above when they mean 'me'. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 21:54, 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relist note : please can we concentrate on the sources. Do they count as detailed RS or not? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per milowent. and carrite.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They gave completely different reasons for keeping, the first one already dismissed and the second one not supported when asked to. Thanks for taking part on our democratic system, though. --Damiens.rf 16:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well I agree with both. so?. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe it indicates you just want the playmate bio to stay for whatever reason. But putting that aside for a moment, since you agree with Milowent statement that there's enough coverage about this girl "out there" to fulfill GNG, would you provide us with examples of such coverage (since Milowent denied to do so when asked?). Of course, this supposes you agree with Millowent because you know these coverage to exist, and not because you simply like the outcome of his opinion. --Damiens.rf 19:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (still). Nom's argument specious at best, reeking of IDONTLIKEIT. I'm not seeing anywhere close to enough to convince me this should go. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This AFD has jumped the shark. It's preposterous that half the "keep" !votes have a rationale faulting the nominator for overstating the subject's notability, and there's the IP sock of an indef-blocked user !voting not once but twice. The only thing qualifying as an RS here is a hometown newspaper article saying "Local girl wants to be Playmate," and that's nowhere near the notability threshold.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep This nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [1]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:17, 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.