Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Nilsson

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]

Sandra Nilsson[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) 00:57, 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) 04:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, a vote for keep suggesting that you do not agree with policy should not be included or weighted in the closure, if you want to change policy then go there and do it, here your comment is against policy as it is now. Off2riorob (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there have been sporadic discussions over the years about how to treat playmates, and loads of AfD "keeps" for playmate nominations going back to 2004 with varying rationales, and WP:PORNBIO has been cited or not and has changed from time to time. I expect editors will consider this evidence or not as they choose. Apparently in recent times (until last month) the rule was automatic notability for playmates, now the rule is not bright-line.--Milowent (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went back to see what the actual track record is here, and I don't see an AfD for a playmate that resulted in a delete since the summer of 2004 (and there's only one!) I guess WP:PORNBIO eventually was edited to say that playmates are considered notable to reflect what the AfDs were showing and thus avoid pointless debates. See:

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stephanie Heinrich (Aug 04 - appears it was a delete, article was recreated in July 05 and not been challenged since)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Audra Lynn (Oct. 04 keep)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dalene Kurtis (Dec. 04 keep)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmella DeCesare (Feb 05 keep)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Waite (April 06 keep)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Liz_Stewart (March 07 keep)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marliece Andrada (Sept 07 keep) (Closer comment: "Absent stronger evidence, there is a longstanding consensus that all Playboy centerfolds are notable, given the fame of the publication both within and without its genre.")

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Evenson (May 08 keep)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charlotte Kemp (Jan 10 keep)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Carrington (Feb 10 keep)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Pilgrim (model) (March 10 keep)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margie Harrison (March 10 keep)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colleen Farrington (March 10 keep)

--Milowent (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 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) 15:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Satisfies GNG after reviewing some of the Google News hits. Particularly this one. [1] Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Milowent and Morbidthoughts' comments. Nymf _hideliho! 18:19, 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]

There is clearly nothng at all in the article to support keep within guidelines or policy, simply having a photo or whatever is nonsense, there are no independent citations and no notability at all. Off2riorob (talk) 00:38, 22 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 ) 03:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep, per Morbid: Passes GNG and being a Playmate is notable, whether WP:PORNBIO mentions it specifically or not. Dekkappai (talk) 06:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG per Morbidthoughts. Epbr123 (talk) 10:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment-I can not see anything in the article that supports the keep comments here that she passes the WP:GNG and I would like that looked at on closure or perhaps relisting to allow a wider community comment. Off2riorob (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I generally agree with Scott's thoughts on this at User_talk:Scott_MacDonald#AFD_closure.--Milowent (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: The GNG do not require that the coverage be already present in the wikipedia article. It simply requires that the person has more than trivial coverage by reliable sources that an article can be written about the person. Even if each specific mention could be considered trivial, the aggregate of the articles (as long as they are intellectually independent) can become significant coverage. If reliable sources continually report on a person because she is a playmate and mention it, that is her sign of notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to have enough coverage, especially in Swedish-language media, to satisfy the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:41, 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.