Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Ramos

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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Ramos[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 03:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability 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. Dekkappai (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2003. 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. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google News search reveals she has at least 3 different newspapers that have an article about her satisfying WP:BASIC. Fort Worth Star-Telegram Dec 12, 2002; Dallas Morning News December 13, 2002; San Antonio Express-News - Nov 26, 2002; San Antonio Express-News Jun 2, 2000; San Antonio Express-News Jan 28, 2004. No playmatehood exception in the GNG. Nominator is confusing trivia as in depth of coverage for importance of the subject Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How am I confusing that? Educate me. WP:BASIC says Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work...". --Damiens.rf 20:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, you are confusing the depth of coverage for the importance of the subject. You think playmatehood is fluff so any coverage on it must be fluff. Clear enough for you? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - You should feel less confident in guessing what I think. Trivial coverage about a person is one that does not goes in depth about this person biography, work, influence, or focuses only on basic facts about a small piece of this person's life. Non-trivial coverage about someone is the kind of coverage that make us know why is this person non-average, and what makes this person non-standard / outstanding. There are clear cases of outstanding actress / models that are playmates. But must of playmates are just playmates, and news-articles about they doing playmate-stuff do not establish this person as notable, otherwise, all playmates would be notable (what was once defended by members of the relevant wikiproject, but defied by the community). --Damiens.rf 20:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Using the spectrum described by note 6 of WP:BASIC on what I consider trivia and not.

1. Articles about playmate autograph signing, trivia.

2. Articles about playmate appearances, trivia.

3. Articles about Hef and mention that she one of the many girls that happens to be around him, trivia.

4. Article about playmate, including some background. Not trivia.

If different reliable sources satisfy 4. That's enough for me. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There will always be some level of "4. Article about playmate". But Local papers, for instance, love to cover how the towngirl turn into a playboy girl. But that's simply not outstanding (in a very loose sense of outstanding, indeed). --Damiens.rf 21:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's my review process. I don't require outstanding. I require multiple coverage that adds up to beyond trivia. The multiple requirement avoids issue of the solo hicktown newspaper coverage (even though I don't discriminate against hicktown). Not all local papers cover their hometown girls. Otherwise they would be in every single playmate article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though I think these nominations may have been made without sufficient individual consideration, this particular one does not seem to have any thing that could represent significant notability . DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 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.