Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Lavoie (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. Redirects may be added at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Lavoie

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Undersourced, claim to notability mostly from having been in the centerfold and cover of a playboy issue. Already nominated for deletion in the past, failed for procedural reasons unrelated to content of article. Jerry (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jerry (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are two references cited in the article - has the nom been able to actually consider them? If not, how do we know that WP:BASIC is actually failed? Also, note that whilst the previous AFD was a procedural keep this does not mean it would otherwise ended with delete. FOARP (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article does not seem especially article, and taking a cursory search of other PlayBoy models that year, most of them seem to redirect to a List page for centerfold subjects. That and a quick search on google doesn't really seem to show much besides wiki mirrors, her personal websites, and archives of her content. Not much in the way of third-party sources. While there are two references for the page, they're both from newspapers, so I can't access them easily. Though from context of what is cited and the names of the articles, she does not seem to be the main recipient of coverage, sand so is "trivial coverage...by secondary sources". If this turns out to be true, the page should likely be a redirect. I'm still looking into accessing these articles. Jerry (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I'm pretty hesitant to vote delete on an article that has references which aren't online. In this case you're probably right that the references aren't being used to support the main claims to notability that are plausible for this article, and based on the titles are most likely simply drive-by references to the subject. As such I'm OK with voting delete. FOARP (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1993, the regular practice for non-notable Playboy Playmates. Reliable source coverage does not satisfy WP:BASIC, nor does it support passing WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete getting one pornographic magazine to showcase a person as their central model for that month is not something we any more deem as a sign of notability, but we did 12 years ago, but have since realized this was needlessly promoting one set of sources in many unjustified ways.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2019 (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.