Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather Kozar

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 03:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Kozar[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 02:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news results spanning more then a decade, while some of the later results are weaker for individual notability, combined with modeling career, notability seems established. Monty₈₄₅ 03:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- She's constantly mentioned trivially in sports related articles that are actually about her husband, quarterback Tim Couch. --Damiens.rf 04:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - She gets mentioned enough that it looks alot like notability. Many of the references are more then trivial, though they are also not substantial coverage of her personally. I still think there is enough between those and the modeling career to establish notability. Monty ₈₄₅ 04:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Mentions of her are trivial at best, and not related to her directly -- notability is not inherited. If anyone can show me 3 reliable sources which discuss her in depth I will happily change my opinion, but i'm not seeing it. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 04:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of Google News hits. These mass nominations are ridiculous, mentioned on a regular basis. There are a number of in depth coverage (and I am not going ot provide examples due to the high volume of frivolous nominations today...) BelloWello (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's try to avoid such attacks. They are the real disruption bearers. --Damiens.rf 05:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You claim there are a number of in depth articles. Can you please show just the one? --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 05:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly a weak keep. Obviously, most of the coverage mentions her Playboy modeling, but not all of it is directly derived from that. In addition to her modeling for the magazine, a planned event to have her throw the first pitch in an Akron Aeros game caused a fan outcry[1][2] that garnered some media coverage. In 2001, she joined[3] The Price is Right, where she was one of the permanent models for about a year. She was the 2002 St. Pauli Girl [4][5]. And quite a few words have been spent on her relationships with Cade McNown and Tim Couch (although those references would only provide citations for a "personal life" section, rather than have a bearing on notabiity). I think there's enough there to just barely sneak across the line, but could probably argue this one either way. Serpent's Choice (talk)
Keep, borderline weak keep. While her credits aren't enough to meet WP:ENT, there seems to be enough non_playmate coverage, given her film and TV work and her celebrity marriage, to justify an independent article, although barely so. Otherwise redirect to the Playmate list article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:59, 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]

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) 22:56, 28 April 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) 13:55, 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.