Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sondra Theodore

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. — Scientizzle 14:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sondra Theodore[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 criteria. Damiens.rf 01:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1977. 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. This one is a closer call, as she might have received significant coverage as part of the hilariously ghastly "Singing Playmates," whose TV appearances make Rebecca Black seem artful. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia 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) 19:33, 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) 20:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - tons of newspaper coverage passing GNG. No playmatehood exception to the GNG. Nominator is confusing trivia as in depth of coverage for importance of the subject. If that's what multiple reliable sources want to cover, that's her notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, give us some examples. Claiming the existence of non-trivial coverage (but refusing to provide any evidence when asked) on every AfD, is not helpful. --Damiens.rf 20:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, example news. [1] Example book. [2] (start at page 283)Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "not helpful" thing is failing to observe the rules of the road detailed at WP:BEFORE, actually. Carrite (talk) 14:21, 4 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) 14:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In this particular case, the sources found by Morbidthoughts appear to amount to significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Together with her appearances in Playboy, notability seems has been established. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 10:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - one of the more notable centerfolds from the 1970s. Her picture on the pinball machine was once widespread. Had significant coverage in the media.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:45, 6 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.