Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead Playboy Playmates

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete, already been merged. Jaranda wat's sup 22:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Playboy Playmates[edit]

Dead Playboy Playmates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I'm fairly certain this falls into What Wikipedia is not. Interesting, yes. But not what an encyclopedia is for. --- RockMFR 00:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not necessary. 23skidoo 00:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. RIP, Anna Nicole. Aplomado talk 00:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; the question is how to define "indiscriminate." I think this case is borderline. My vote to delete rests on the fact that the Playboy Playmates are well categorized, so we don't lose much by deleting this list. YechielMan 00:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom.--John Lake 00:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per yechielman --frothT 00:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Daniel5127 <Talk> 00:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is nothing more than a glorified category listing. Dates of death and causes should be in the article on each subject herself. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 00:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom.Avador 01:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Tilefish 01:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Though I did get a mighty chuckle when I saw this was an article. --Jaysweet 01:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - useless collection of trivia. NetOracle 01:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 02:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Peta 03:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per YechielMan and Joe Beaudoin Jr.. -- Black Falcon 04:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Per YechielMan, I don't really care if this gets deleted or not, But It Doesn't really do any "Harm" to Wikipedia, Does it?Corporal Punishment 04:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Fails WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Ronbo76 05:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Realkyhick 05:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - They're in the playmates category and they're in the deaths category, so they're not at all difficult to find without this article. Completely unnecessary.--Dycedarg ж 06:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Corporal Punishment reasonOo7565 06:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Playmates can have articles, and articles can have categories. John Vandenberg 06:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. User:Corporal Punishment's justification for keeping is essentially the textbook insufficient reason. Maxamegalon2000 06:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. My biggest surprise, frankly, was that a perusal of the article history reveals that this didn't just get created today. Though I suppose I can understand why it wouldn't have gotten noticed until today. Bearcat 07:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article does no harm and there are already list of everything from historical cats to (short) list of Muslim Nobel Prize winners. What makes this article any less worthy that those? Lets try to keep some sort of uniform policy and not just remove random articles based on what you personally happen to find unnecessary. Rune X2 08:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary and unencyclopedic. We would end up with a "dead" list to mirror every other list of people. As for doing no harm, well it doesn't but you could argue that all sorts of non-notable articles do no harm, but they still get deleted.Jules1975 08:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:RS, WP:V. Also , of course, WP:NOT. Please find WP:NOHARM to see why it talks about not using "does no harm" as a keep rationale. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 09:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's clearly both WP:RS and WP:V. The detailed information should be in the articles of the playmates. And if you use WP:NOT, you should specify which point precisely in the rather extensive list you think it fails. If this article should be delete I suppose you'd support deleteing the two I mentioned above to be deleted as well. Else there would be no uniform system to it at all. Rune X2 11:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This article is strongly encyclopedic and it doesn’t really do any "Harm" to Wikipedia. --Stepanovas 09:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The content may be slightly encyclopedic, but this is, again, a glorified category listing and the content (namely death and cause of death0 should be included under each subject's page. Also, please read the reason why "It doesn't do any harm" arguments are fallacious. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 10:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom Mdcollins1984 11:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I'm the one who created the article in the first place. Perhaps the information can be merged into the main Playmate article? Rglovejoy 12:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - only if there is some verifiable reason why being a Playmate makes one more apt to die. Fact is the first Playmates are now in their 60s and 70s; nature is going to take its course eventually anyway; there isn't anything particularly notable about the fact members of a certain group die over time. If this list were of Playmates who were murdered,, that would be a different story, and probably a very short list. 23skidoo 13:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment on the comment - There are two that were murdered that I'm aware of: Star Stowe and Dorothy Stratten. Most of those who died, however, died fairly young, because of drug overdoses or accidents or disease. Rglovejoy 14:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lists serve important indexing functions and partially alleviate one of the major bottlenecks in the operation: the search function. A list of dead Playboy playmates answers questions that readers might be interested in: you have a group of young women famous chiefly for being attractive, but some have come to natural or unexpected deaths; who are they? - Smerdis of Tlön 15:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be assuming too much of people's use of wikipedia - do you really think a lot of people will search for this term? More likely, any traffic this article gets is as a result of a link from a different article that people click out of morbid curiosity.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 16:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we ought to pass judgment on peoples' curiosity. The question is, will this list answer their "morbidly" curious questions? - Smerdis of Tlön 17:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the real problem, though, is your reasoning could be used as an argument in favor of every list. "Playboy playmates who didn't graduate high school" or "Actors who own border collies" or any other potentially indiscriminate list could be kept on the grounds that it might satisfy a single person's curiosity.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 18:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Actors who own border collies"? I'm going to go start that one right now. Wikipedia should be about everything! — coelacan talk — 03:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This actually might be a good idea if any of the information was sourced. However, none of it is, so a merge does not make sense. --- RockMFR 20:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This [1] would probably be helpful with that, so as a concern, I'm not too bothered with it in regards to this list. As it stands, every Playmate's page I looked at could use some work anyway. FrozenPurpleCube 22:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete they will all die someday, why document it like this? Booshakla 18:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sine eventually they'll all be on the list... Philippe Beaudette 18:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This would be more useful in a "List of playmates", that included such info as the playmates' hometown, age of appearance in the magazine, and then also age/cause of death. I do think it's interesting that many of these women were lost to unusual circumstances, but there needs to be more context to show how the statistics compare with all women who were playmates, many of whom are still alive and healthy. --Elonka 19:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep my attempt to stop this avalanche revolves around the selection bias for WP:XFD on articles of a sensitive moral nature. Most people are unwilling to say positive things about Playboy related articles, lists, categories and templates. This is true of people who are in fact supportive. They are just unwilling to say so. I have managed to get several pages like Playboy Online undeleted noting this as part of my argument. I realize that my argument is likely to fall on deaf ears, but this is an encyclopedi article. If delete please merge. TonyTheTiger 19:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trust me, I did not nom this article because of the nature of Playboy. I nominated it because a list of dead people is not encyclopedic. Should we have a list of dead xxxxx for every xxxxx classification on Wikipedia? --- RockMFR 20:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Not in a list. If the person is notable enough, we should note their death and reason it occurred in the article of the subjects themselves, but not in a list format. A category of deceased playmates is one thing; a listing is another, and would be unnecessarily redundant. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 21:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not unnecessarily redundant, it's potentially useful. See List of United States Presidents by date of death for one easy example. I think that is a convenient and helpful list, so I don't object to this list purely on that subject. FrozenPurpleCube 22:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Deceased Playboy Playmates. If not at least merge with related article. Who knows if by an amazing coincidence that somebody on Who Want To Be A Millionaire needed to phone a friend for help on a question on deceased Playboy Playmates and the friend used Wikipedia to search for this article. Jungworld.com 20:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a trivia information dump or a gameshow question answering service. It'd be really weird for a question about this to turn up on WWTBAM anyway. Bwithh 00:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 20:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a valid informational list. The fact that both categories exist is not an argument against the list's validity —siroχo 22:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete canonical listcruft. There is no encyclopaedic topic "Playboy Playmates who are dead", therefore a list of them is entirely aritrary. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not necessary Julia 23:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Listcruft with potential WP:SOAPBOX problems. I can't imagine any use of this article aside from either a strange morbidity or some moral didactic intention to show that Playmates go to a bad end or both. Bwithh 00:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Would you delete a table of deceased NBA players that demonstrates that on average they have longer or shorter lifespans (even if the correlation is possibly spurious) than non-members, forcing researchers to compile the data from all individual NBA players' bios, wasting time to exclude those still living? It may be that factors pertaining to selection as a Playmate correlate, meaningfully or not, with longevity.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.131.165.23 (talk • contribs).
  • Such a compilation would be original research. Unless another source reports on such a correlation, it should not be on Wikipedia. --- RockMFR 01:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per above. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 02:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete necrophilia fetishcruft. Or, more likely, a great example of what we don't need lists for. "Dead cosmonauts" and "living Cirque du Soleil acrobats" make just as much sense. How about "dead Kennedys"? Well, this article can come back when it's the name of a band. — coelacan talk — 03:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too arbitrary. And creepy.-- danntm T C 03:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please cite Wikipedia guildelines designating 'creepy' and 'necrophiliac' as grounds for deletion. There is a lot of 'we don't need Dead Kennedys, Dead Cosmonauts, or Dead NBA Players here' (and why not?) but nobody saying 'if there are now such lists, or come to be such lists in the future, I will pursue their deletion, as I will now pursue the deletion of Muslim Nobel Prize Winners and Historical Cats, in order to enforce my objections to Dead Playboy Playmates consistently across the board.' Without such a commitment, isn't an objection to Dead Playboy Playmates inconsistent?64.131.165.23 05:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Xtopher Simpson[reply]
  • You know, your argument isn't very convincing. (Not least because you're not making one as to why it's indiscriminate. Just claiming it is so doesn't really convince me.). Anyway, I think it's pretty clear that Death itself is notable, and it's a given that it's going to be included in any article about a person, or group of people. Playboy Playmates also have some degree of notability as well. Thus I don't see any reason why one would have to show in particular that any given group that is notable has to show anything about its deaths to include the information. That said, a quick look has shown me at least 2 movies/tv specials on Playmate deaths. I suspect ANS will spawn at least one as well. Thus I'd say there's enough interest in the subject of some Playmate's deaths to give it at least some coverage. I just wouldn't say this article is the right way to go about it. FrozenPurpleCube 07:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I've ever said that their deaths should not be mentioned on Wikipedia. Their deaths should be mentioned in the articles about the individual people. That's obvious. What's not obvious is why there should be a separate article discussing this. There's nothing underneath this article, it's original research to say that there's something important about this intersection between dead people and Playmates. The reason it's indiscriminate is that it's just a list of women in a particular profession who are dead. What on Earth is notable about that? Nothing. Why should it have an article? — coelacan talk — 09:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In any group of reasonable specificity, listing the basic biographical facts of their lives is a given, even if it's just the dates of their birth and death. Adding the cause of death is not an especially large change, and can be found on many pages already. Sometimes it's even a page of its own. See the Presidents page I already mentioned, or this one List of monarchs of the British Isles by cause of death among others. I'm not saying that is the route I'd go here, but I don't know why you're quibbling about interest, as I said, I found several movies/tv specials about Playmate deaths. Did you miss that part of my reply? I do think mentioning that Dorothy Stratton, Claudia Jennings and any other Playmates whose death has lead to such interest should be covered. Might even include Marilyn Monroe in the list, though she was known for other things so maybe not. Now I'm not saying that this article is the way I'd do it. I would prefer listing their biographical details in a separate page, and covering the interesting/notable deaths in the Playboy Playmates article. FrozenPurpleCube 15:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then you aren't even in favor of keeping this article, so I don't know why you're discussing this here. Take it to Talk:Playmate. This is just an AFD for this article. It doesn't have any bearing on whether you can try to include the information at Playboy Playmates instead. — coelacan talk — 06:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, an AFD is an important place to discuss alternative to deletion, which is why I suggested merge earlier. I may not be in favor of keeping this article, but the information in the article isn't a problem in itself. In fact, as I said earlier, it's already in Playboy Playmates. FrozenPurpleCube 20:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are categories for this. --Tim1988 talk 15:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is very informative and kind interesting to know, but I think the title should be changed to "Deceased Playboy Playmates" instead of the "harsh" title of "Dead Playboy Playmates" Tazz 17:04 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can understand why this would be interesting. Most of these Playmates died prematurely and tragically. There's a kernel of something that could possibly be kept--perhaps a legend of a "Playmate curse"--but only if such is based on reliable sources. That's not present here, and a mere list of Playmates who happen to be dead is unencyclopedic and as unnecessary as a List of deceased United States presidents. Nick Graves 16:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're actually talking about List of United States Presidents by date of death? Hmm, no, I don't think it should be deleted at all. FrozenPurpleCube 22:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All humans die, and any list of a subset of people that no longer happen to qualify for Category:living people is not encyclopedic and is extremely myopic time-wise. May be a good list for a trivia website, but not for a timeless encyclopedia. 76.22.4.86 22:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article was quick to access with general search engine. Data was quantitative and reliable. Many articles are written about Playboy's negative impact on society. This is a useful resource on establishing statistical data on how this type of lifestyle compares to the general public.Kingy42 03:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)kingy42[reply]
  • Delete as barely encyclopedic and not necessary as this can be done in a category. Montco 04:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the same information is already in the Playmate article (see the section "Playmates who have died"). Redundant. Bellpepper 13:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What possible difference does it make to any of your lives if this article is in Wikipedia? Nettyboo 14:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Categorise "Dead Playboy Playmates" is a very harsh words for this list, should it be "Deceased Playboy Playmates" instead, only nominating this as it should be category rather than a list. Willirennen 17:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful, interesting and historically significant. It enrichs wikipedia. What's not to keep? Clearly, there exists suspicions of a "playboy curse" and perhaps this article needs to be modified to show that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.144.32.165 (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dead_Playboy_Playmates&oldid=1146670239"