Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugena Washington

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. Consensus remains that POY gives a presumption of notability. I don't know whether that consensus is present for POM, but that is not the issue here DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eugena Washington[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Lack of GNG and has dubious sources. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Background: tagged for WP:PROD by the nominator (Sportsfan 1234) with the comment:

Non-notable person

Proposed deletion contested by me (Syrenka V) with the comment:

Presumptively notable as having "received a well-known and significant award or honor" (Playboy Playmate of the Year) per section WP:ANYBIO within guideline WP:BIO

Whatever any one person thinks of Playboy Playmate of the Year, it is, without reasonable doubt, a "well-known and significant award or honor" from the point of view of the general culture. And the General notability guideline (WP:GNG) is only one section of the guideline WP:Notability (WP:N), which unequivocally states that the GNG is not the only way of showing presumptive notability (emphasis added):

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and

2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

The guideline WP:Notability (people) (WP:BIO) is one of those listed in that box. Contrary to popular deletionist opinion, a topic need not necessarily meet WP:GNG in order to have a presumption of notability. Does Eugena Washington meet WP:GNG? We don't even need to know.

Likewise, the section WP:NEXIST within the guideline WP:N states as its title:

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article

Deletionists frequently allege "dubious sources" currently cited within an article, but that is not a valid basis for deletion according to the guidelines. I'm aware that there are essays that make claims to the contrary. They're simply wrong.

This nomination for deletion was contrary to the guidelines and should be rejected out of hand, without any need to improve the article beforehand, or to investigate its sourcing, or to evaluate whether its topic meets the GNG. Doubtless as a recognized Start-class article it does need improvement to make a better encyclopedia—but not to justify keeping the article.

—Syrenka V (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "award" here is not one based on merit, and so does not fit our guidelines for "significant award or honor". No other reason to have the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "Based on merit" is not in the guidelines. Only what is well-known to the public and seen as significant by the public matters.

—Syrenka V (talk) 07:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Keep Like most, if not all, of the hundreds of Playmates of the Month (See List of Playboy Playmates of the Month, while recognizing that not all of them have their own main articles) and dozens of Playmates of the Year (see List of Playboy Playmates of the Year), she is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. This is not a Tu quoque argument. Rather, it supports the inference that the award recipients are notable precisely because they received these awards. Indeed, because she was the last of the Hugh Hefner/Playboy Mansion announced POTY winner, she is unique. This is the bar we have set; she is over that bar. Res ipsa loquitor. I did update the sourcing some. She appears to have a successful modeling career.

If there is a cognizable proper reason to delete this, while ignoring the other articles, I'd like to hear it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:39, 11 November 2017 (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.