Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Moore (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. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Moore (model)

(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 03:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I think there's just enough coverage out there to justify an independent article, but it's a very close call and a redirect absent article improvement is certainly justifiable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - mainstream media seems to like to cover her due to her playmate status. No exception to "playmatehood" in GNG or WP:BASIC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:48, 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]

'KEEP The accomplishments of Barbara Moore meet the requirements of WP:BASIC and surpass the requirements of WP:ANYBIO. Nominators assertion that "Playmate of the Month" is not an award is false, and his "strategic commercial decision" analysis is irrevelant. Glenn Francis (talk) 00:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any arguments to bring to this discussion, or just declarations of truth? --Damiens.rf 09:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 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) 13:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, enough to meet GNG.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE so far, no keep vote provided any evidence of notability. Just plain declarations. If we were a democracy, this AfD would be easy to close. --Damiens.rf 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated this mass of articles with checkoing for notability. You nominated people who weren't even playmates as not notable because they were just playmates. If we were a Greek democracy, watch out for the Ostracon with your name on it.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-playmates? I called playmate any models that stripped for playboy, and used a playboy list article as my guideline. It comes out that some of them are actually "'cyber girl'", "playboy's net mate" and other even more obscure classifications. These one are the most non-notable of them all.

But of course, pointing unrated mistakes by is easier that actually discussing the merits of this article. --Damiens.rf 22:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet still more difficult than the effort it took you to nominate them all. I've only ever read Playboy for the articles and even I know the basic distinction of whether there is a staple in the model.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:04, 6 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.