Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Lynn (actress)

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. Seems like the consensus indicates that the lone award is not sufficient to establish ANYBIO notability and neither is GNG met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Lynn (actress)[edit]

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

Fails Pornbio and GNG. Doesn’t claim to have won any awards and penthouse has long not been grounds for an article. Left with rubbish sources. One is a photo credit for an illustration so have no impact on N and the other is a ‘confessions of a porn star’ effort that is therefore primary and apparently of littke biographical value if the quote is porn helped her learn how to ejaculate. Blps deserve better. Suggest delete and redirect to list of penthouse pets. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no show of notability. It is high time we started getting Wikipedia back into balance. It needs to stop overly catoring to the intestest of 20-year-old American males.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Penthouse Pet of the Year satisfies ANYBIO#1. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Article shows no BLP problems. Unscintillating (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Penthouse Pet list reflecting standard practice. Fewer than half of the "Pets of the Year" have individual articles, and the celebrity attaching to post-Guccione winners has generally been quite low. No real argument that the subject satisfies the GNG or otherwise satisfies PORNBIO. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've not made a delete argument, and your redirect argument fails to explain ANYBIO#1. Unscintillating (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out established consensus practice supports the delete argument. Several Pets of the Year have been deleted in the recent past -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gina LaMarca (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taylor Vixen (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Aniston (2nd nomination)]]. Consenus has developed that this really isn't a significant award -- if it's an award at all; it's mostly if not entirely a job making promotional appearances for the magazine. And it's very much worth noting that the great majority of "winners" who have articles aren't hardcore porn performers, but have more traditional film or reality TV credits leading to reliable source coverage. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anybio1 states, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." Unscintillating (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. I do not find the argument that "Penthouse Pet of the Year satisfies ANYBIO#1" to be compelling and there's nothing else there. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a BLP. It reports no sourcing problems, which negates your claim that it lacks sources. What is your standard whereby Penthouse Pet of the Year is something other than satisfying ANYBIO#1? Unscintillating (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Lack of sources" means that the subject is not notable; see WP:N. Also relevant: WP:WHYN. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WHYN is not a part of the standard, and WP:N doesn't require GNG sources when ANYBIO#1 is satisfied. Unscintillating (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No proof of notability. All sources are unreliable or dead. Nice photo. My very best wishes (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What defines "proof"? Unscintillating (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the established notability guidelines of the project, pet of the year is not an automatic qualifier for WP:ANYBIO, it's just a girl who gets her vagina on a few more pages than the usual girls. Over half of the Year "winners" at List of Penthouse Pets do not have standalone bios, and there are at least 3-4 that have the same level of poor notability as Ms. Lynn, and could probably be tossed as well. TheValeyard (talk) 04:56, 6 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.