Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Lohmann

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 20:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Lohmann[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 03:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news hits suggest this person is notable. Article needs improvement with additional references, not deletion. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [1], so also keep for that reason. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2001. 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) 16:07, 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. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:20, 28 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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Monty. No playmatehood exception to GNG or WP:BASIC. Nominator is confusing trivial as in depth of coverage with importance of the topic. Just because the newspaper cover her because she's a playmate doesn't disqualify the coverage. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:29, 1 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) 13:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to List of Playboy Playmates of 2001. Although she does not pass WP:N on her own, she could still be a search term, and whatever information is available here could simply be merged into the main article. All due respect to Carrite, but the use of automated deletion nominating bots does not seem to fall under the purview of the AfD board; from my understanding, the AfD board is just to discuss the possible deletion of articles. If there is a decision from higher up saying that these articles have to be renominated manually or whatnot, that is fine. However, I feel that keeping them all on principle would be counterproductive. This argument will be copied and pasted, with slight modification, in the debate sections for all applicable AfDs of this ilk. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or close as no consensus. No real consensus to delete this one, its part of a mass nom, and this one hasn't gotten much attention. Sufficient arguments for notability have been made.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:41, 13 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.