Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shannon Long

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Shannon Long

Shannon Long (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(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 its 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 03:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 07:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - zip news articles, book mentions, or any independant writing about her I can find. clearly fails to meet any of our requirements for writing a neutral and verifiable article - Peripitus (Talk) 09:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1988. 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) 16:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• 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. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• 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) 13:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

In the time it took to write that you could have done what I did: searched for references, found none, and come to the conclusion that the article is unsustainable. Peripitus (Talk) 10:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Need help with math? Ten minutes to write the above, then ONE FULL HOUR to paste it approximately 100 times into all the cut-and-paste deletion nominations churned out in one hour by a single editor. It takes more like 15 minutes to properly research and write up a challenge defense, which is what you seem to think I should have done 100 times. That would take TWENTY-FIVE HOURS to fight the IDON'TLIKEIT cut-and-paste challenges of this week, over Playboy models this time, Frats and Sororities last time, who knows what the fuck next. As if I've got nothing better to do than defend shit I ultimately don't care about other than the PRINCIPLE of stopping these automated mass annihilation attempts. Believe it or not, I'm here to write articles, not defend stupid shit that some people are cheating the process to eliminate because THEY DON'T LIKE IT. This crap has GOT TO BE STOPPED. It is disrespectful to the authors of the articles. It is disrespectful of the process at AfD. It is disrespectful of Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for spending 15 seconds of your time to share your opinion, by the way. Carrite (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep: I see references exist in the australian press to her, if you weed out incorrect hits, e.g., [1]. Australian papers are not as well covered on google news as US papers.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • We need non-trivial coverage. What you show is actually less than trivial mentions. I see references such as that exists to my grandma as well (seriously). We have not evidence this person is not an ordinary girl. --Damiens.rf 20:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Which Month was your grandma a playmate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.89.10 (talk) 05:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't knew her. --Damiens.rf 10:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

What did you do to vet the article before this mass nomination? Your uncivil behavior astounds me.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete:Coverage is minimal - trivial - topless model - redirect to the list. Off2riorob (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Procedural Keep This nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [2]. Monty₈₄₅ 02:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any reason, related to the article, that we should keep it ? - Peripitus (Talk) 22:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Just my concern that the members of this batch of 100+ articles have not received the individual attention they would have if they had been nominated normally, and that someone may have found justification to keep the article. However, I do not have a specific aurgument for keeping those particular one of the batch, other then that this one has more information in the article that makes her sound more likely to be notable, but that is already mentioned above. Monty₈₄₅ 23:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

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.