Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people in Playboy by Birthdate

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 Delete--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people in Playboy by Birthdate[edit]

Another list that qualifies as WP:NOT#INFO. All the info needed can be found at individual playmate's articles, no need to have a list like this. Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. Tone 20:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listcruft.--Ispy1981 21:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft. Useight 22:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I am pro beautiful women and honoring their birthdays, I don't think that this type of list is encyclopedic for any group of people regardless of whether it is my favorite baseball team, my personal friends or a list of bunnies. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This isn't a list of the Playmates birthdays, it's a list of their years of birth (birthdates), time of first appearance and age at the time, age at time of death (that needs to be made clearer), etc. Everyone of them is a bluelink. I kind of like the idea that there's an 84 year old lady out there who was Miss January '55. Say what you will, but it's informative, well organized and it passes the notability test. Mandsford 00:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is not informative, is irrelevant, and duplicates information that exists in other lists on Wikipedia. These ladies simply aren't that important that we need dozens of separate lists about them, and their age is one of the less important things about them. --Charlene 01:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's high time the phrase "indiscriminate collection of information" was redefined or reinterpreted. <K F> 06:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a poster child for indiscriminate. If there were a Playboy wiki, or even a pin-up wiki, it might fit in, but I just don't see what function the list serves beyond making a list. For example, I could just barely see a justification for List of Playboy Playmates by age at first appearance which might conceivably tell us something about the ages considered appropriate for nude models in different eras. I don't think it would survive AFD, though, either. --Dhartung | Talk 07:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ and add fold-out illustrations, for the benefit of Wikipedia users (no current nude picture of Miss January '55, please) Mandsford 11:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Only vote once, please. Eusebeus 12:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant list. Eusebeus 12:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless list and violates WP:NOT Kwsn^(Ni!) 16:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. --Ace of Swords 16:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Everyone [sic] of them is a bluelink." Then make sure the information is present in the individual articles, and delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 19:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it does boggle the mind that we have articles on every playmate, but since we do grouping them this way rather than by age at time of appearance, or by order of appearance, or by height, weight, cup size, whatever, seems unnecessary. Carlossuarez46 21:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It's a list article and it's not indiscriminate, one has to be a Playboy Playmate to be on the list. The list makes it easy to see which former Playmates are still alive and how old they are, and how old they were when they appeared in the magazine. The list doesn't count as "indiscrimiinate collection of information" because it does not fall under any of the 10 sub-sections listed on WP:NOT#INFO. The data is within a table. The article is neutral, verifiable, and contains no original research. "Cruft" is a subjective term meant to belittle any piece of information. Even if there was a common definition as to what "cruft" is, there is no policy against "cruft." As far as I can tell, there are only two articles on Wikipedia that list every Playmate on one page and I think this is a useful article. Everyone on the page is notable, and the article is useful for comparing their current ages. --Pixelface 22:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Third option. Can't we use sortable tables to generate a list with this functionality that also allows sorting by date of appearance, date of death, age at time of appearance, alphabetically by name, etc., thus serving all the desired functions at once? --tjstrf talk 22:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to suggest the same. Sortable tables reduce the number of articles about the same thing drastically. --Tone 09:29, 22 June 2007 (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.