Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Anderson

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Anderson[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 02:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. TV credits etc, even if not strictly unrelated to Playboy, justify an independent article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where do you see those tv credits? According to ibdb, she appeared in one episode of Fear Factor, 5 Playboy videos, and she was once on Howard Stern to promote it her magazine. --Damiens.rf 04:57, 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]

Strong Keep - Notable in my opinion. Jccort (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, help us by elaborating on that. Being notable in your opinion is not an inclusion criteria. --Damiens.rf 01:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - But they're stating it strongly -- giving tremendous weight to their argument by assertion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per hullaballoo.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Television appearances listed in the article prove she is notable. Dream Focus 08:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They are too trivial. See above. --Damiens.rf 17:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication of "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", so fails WP:NACTOR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage [1] passing GNG. There's no playmatehood exception to GNG and that kind of coverage is not disqualified from notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A link to a google news search, while easy to copy and paste, does not establishes notability. Trivial coverage is excluded from GNG. Trivial tv roles plus a trivial modeling work (i.e.: being a playmate) does not sums up to a notable biography. Do you have specific examples of coverage about her? Multiple examples. I know it's harder to defy your argument when you just state their existence instead of showing them. But I expect the closing admin to avoid such purely assertive votes. This is not a democratic decision. --Damiens.rf 15:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The multiple reliable sources revealed in the Google news search I linked satisfies the floor of WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". However if you want individual links to substantial coverage articles, [2][3] (go to page 1b) [4]. It's clear that you haven't done any due dilligence under WP:BEFORE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - None of this seems to amount to "significant coverage" (would be more accurately characterised as 'insubstantial puffery') -- and can be summarised to 'she's a playmate and a basketballer's girlfriend'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Like I've repeated many times before, you are confusing depth of coverage with importance of the topic. I know you think it's all fluff. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I'm contrasting superficial coverage, which is what the coverage you link to exhibits, with "'Significant coverage' [which] means that sources address the subject directly in detail" -- which is what WP:Notability requires. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry dude, I was directing my previous response thinking you were the nominator. Your point still does not explain my quote from BASIC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        (i) As I have already indicated, I don't consider the sources you list to exhibit "depth of coverage". (ii) A whole bunch of sources stating variations of 'she's a playmate' are hardly exhibiting "intellectually independen[ce] of each other", so cannot be combined to demonstrate notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 20:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        That's where we differ from each other. You think the coverage is fluff because the content is fluff. I think the coverage is enough even if the subject may be fluff. The only intellectual independence (which is not mentioned in WP:GNG) I require is that the articles are not the same articles (reprints) or quotes one another. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Your quote from WP:BASIC conveniently kept out the passage:
        trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. (...) Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work
        — Wikipedia, Basic criteria, WP:BASIC
        
        This follow right after the passage you quoted, but you removed it, loosing context. --Damiens.rf 20:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        and I keep stating you're confusing depth of coverage with importance of the subject. Hence, WP:WABBITSEASON. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per HW. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 19:50, 3 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) 14:09, 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.