Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer and Natalie Jo Campbell

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 Clear consensus to keep at this time. Mike Cline (talk) 11:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer and Natalie Jo Campbell[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG,nothing in the text that shows any Wikipedia:Notability (people) Off2riorob (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I realize this is part of a good faith mass nomination by Off2riorob, so I am posting basically the same comment on all of them. I understand that WP:PORNBIO was changed recently via Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2010#RFC:_Every_playmate_is_notable but I don't think that outcome necessarily reflected true consensus. The bright line rule of "every playmate gets an article" was much easier to administer and reduced editor overhead time, instead of us spending lots of time deciding that some (most?) playmates get articles and a few get shuffled off into some "playmates of 200x" article. I guess we'll see, if these articles get deleted, whether they get successively recreated. (see also AfDs of 2010 playmates)----Milowent (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete or merge to list article. Does not evidence notability as defined by substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources unrelated to the subject. Hipocrite (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Satisfies PORNBIO with multiple appearances on The Girls Next Door. Satisfies the GNG with these coverages. [1][2][3][4][5] Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The text about the Playmate that accompanies the photographs of the Playmate is the significant coverage required by GNG. This is not the same situation as a picture of a model without significant accompanying text about the model. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Morbidthoughts. Dismas|^(talk) 20:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The change in rule did not get wide consensus. It's simpler to keep them all in, than to go through and select and discuss them individually. The rationale is that this particular manner of publication is considered internationally as the standard of notability by nonspecialists. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Besides being a Playmate, which is notable whether WP:PORNBIO mentions it specifically or not, MorbidThoughts shows she passes GNG and has made multiple mainstream appearances. Dekkappai (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Morbidthoughts. Epbr123 (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. News coverage appears to satisfy the GNG, though not much margin for error. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2010 (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.