Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrice Hollis

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patrice Hollis[edit]

Patrice Hollis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP that has existed uncited for three years?, nothing to really assert notability, was in a music video? and a minor reality show Off2riorob (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: BLPs that are uncited for 3 years are not uncommon, of course, and since she was playmate it probably wasn't seriously contested. 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 other AfDs of 2010 playmates)--Milowent (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addition: Note that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Nilsson I posted some background showing that no AfD of a playmate has resulted in a delete since August 2004.--Milowent (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If her article is deleted all articles about Playmates should be deleted. Include all, or include none. 128.104.truth (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Not all Playmates are notable or non-notable. What are you reasons for your keep 'vote' for Patrice Hollis? EuroPride (talk) 16:44, 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) 15:14, 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) 18:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, per WP:GNG. this is a sufficiently well sourced blp that has lasted long. PamelaBMX (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Being a Playmate is notable, whether WP:PORNBIO mentions it specifically or not. Also, has made multiple mainstream appearances ("appeared at The Girls Next Door reality show and in music videos for Mary J. Blige, Redman and 50 Cent. Hollis was also a contestant on the MTV television show NEXT in 2006.") The photo also strongly indicates that WP:HOTTIE comes into play on this one. Clear Keep. Dekkappai (talk) 06:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO per mainstream appearances. Epbr123 (talk) 10:28, 22 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Patrice_Hollis&oldid=1138208375"