Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gina LaMarca (2nd nomination)

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 and redirect to List of Penthouse Pets. Randykitty (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gina LaMarca

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

Fails GNG and PORNBIO. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is lightweight even for porn bios, there's literally nothing of importance this person has done. Not hard to imagine why reliable sources cannot be found for a one-and-done film stint. Tarc (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My sweeps did not produce anything.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes PORNBIO and WP:ANYBIO because Penthouse Pet of the Year is a well known and significant award. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that the Penthouse Pet of the Year is an inherently notable award is not one that has gained a consensus that I can find. In fact, after perusing some WP:N archives, I found some guy who once opined ...we agreed that Playmates should be presumed notable since all Playmates seem to be frequently covered by reliable mainstream sources but the presumption does not seem to apply to all Penthouse Pets. Curious, no? Tarc (talk) 03:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not curious at all with proper context. The conversation was whether the monthly Pets and Playmates should be considered notable considering being a centerfold was not an award. I was summarising consensus at the time which favoured Playboy over Penthouse. However, Penthouse Pet of the Year is an award competed by the monthly pets just like Playboy Playmates compete for the Playmate of the Year. Opinions can change but mine hasn't on this issue[1] despite your attempt at irony and misdirection. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That consensus is still present today. Penthouse is like Playboy's sluttier cousin, and while Playmates are seen as an iconic part of American culture, Penthouse Pets, Hustler Honeys, and a dozen other "of-the-month" (and even of-the-year) awards by other publications, are not. Tarc (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pet of the Year, like Playmate of the Year, isn't an award; it's a job. The person who "wins" it does promotional work for the publication. Playmates of the Year get more coverage than Pets do, but they don't necessarily get individual articles. About half the Playmates of the Year in the current millennium don't have individual articles, reflecting the fact that some of them haven't generated the level of coverage needed to demonstrate notability. About half the Pets of the Year don't have individual articles, either, and the ones that do typically satisfy the awards standards of PORNBIO (with a few meeting WP:ENTERTAINER for mainstream media appearances). Consensus and practice call for case-by-case evaluation. LaMarca fails PORNBIO and has no nontrivial mainstream credits; there's no claim she otherwise has coverage satisfying the GNG. Therefore, the article should be deleted. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pageant winners have promotional obligations, but no one argues their crowns are not awards. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets - While I think that an argument can be made that Penthouse Pets of the Year are notable, I believe the best course of action at this time would be to redirect this current stand-alone article. Guy1890 (talk) 06:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Past practice in similar cases has been to delete and allow, but not require, creation of a redirect. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2015 (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.