Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kara Monaco

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. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 02:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Monaco[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2005. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Dekkappai (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Due to the high standards of Playboy, those chosen as "Playmates" become famous. Those chosen as "Playmates of the Year" become Very Famous, a fame that lasts for a very long time thus "quite" notable. Similar to beauty pageants, winners are chosen because they have many other qualities in addition to beauty, particularly their ability to positively represent whoever chose them. A "Playmate of the Year" has a big responsibility to represent one of the most famous Brands in the World - "Playboy." To decide that a "Playmate of the Year" is not notable enough to be in Wikipedia is inexcusable. The explanation of the nominator is seriously flawed. He states that "Playmates of the Year" should be deleted because their position/title/recognition is not called an "Award." Well, an Award by any other name is still an Award, whether it's called a Crown, Laurel, Honor, Trophy, Medal, Oscar, Grammy, Emmy, Pennant, or a Miss, it’s all the same thing – Recognition for something outstanding from everyone else. This passes both criteria 1 & 2 of WP:ANYBIO. The nominator’s statement that the choosing and recognizing of the best Playmate of the year is a strategic commercial decision to better commercialize its products is ridiculous if not laughable. In the United States, almost everything is the result of a commercial decision to, hopefully, better commericialize their products. Fed Ex, Coca-Cola, McDonald's - those names and products are all the result of "strategic commercial decisions" made to better commercialize it products - does that mean they should be deleted also? Glenn Francis (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You say "[the nominator] states that "Playmates of the Year" should be deleted because their position/title/recognition is not called an "Award."" ---- You have an unpaired understanding of this nomination. This was never supported here. --Damiens.rf 09:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Playmate of the Year is a well known award satisfying criteria 1 of PORNBIO, strategic decision or not. No playmatehood exception in GNG or WP:BASIC on coverage revealed through Google News search. The newspapers cover her. I'm not going to question why. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This many nominations at once seems a bit disruptive, I'm afraid. :( coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Playmate of the year is 10x more notable than the crappy porn bios that pass PORNBIO all the time for baloney awwards. The nom is part of a mass nom, so no doubt the nominator didn't even look at the individual articles.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We all know that other crap exists, but this should never be taken seriously as a reason for keeping. Your statement about my nominations is a non-sequitur. --Damiens.rf 23:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Other crap exists is certainly a valid AfD argument which wins the day every day, when used correctly. As Wikipedia:Other stuff exists says, "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." My point is that actresses with less notability often get kept in AfD as sufficiently notable, so let's be careful before we draw the line higher for former playmates. As for my non-sequitur, i was abhorred to see your mass nomination without care about the individual articles.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Milo. Nom is trolling, as evidenced by the pitiable rejoinders throughout this thread. State your reasons for nom (even if you're mass nominating, and clearly on the wind up) and STFU. --212.137.70.194 (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2011 (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.