Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taylor Vixen

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 no consensus. After two full relistings, no consensus has formed, although the discussion is ever so slightly leaning toward deletion, but not enough to actually do so. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Davey2010 struck their !vote after I closed the discussion (diff). The result remains as no consensus, but now it's not leaning delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Vixen[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails pornbio and gng so delete but suggest refirect to List of Penthouse Petsof the Year afterwards. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meets PORNBIO & GNG - As always this !vote has nothing to do with looks!..... –Davey2010^Talk 22:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for sounding like a fucking idiot but has my !vote actually been taken seriously here? ... I make the comments as a bit of fun and as Spartaz notes below I never expect them to be taken seriously at all, Anyway don't see the point in redirecting to the Penthouse article as the actual main article to the list is forever deleted and to be totally honest it seems logical just to get rid of the list!, Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 23:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what "as the actual main article to the list is forever deleted" is supposed to mean, but if one isn't going to take the AfD process seriously, then maybe one shouldn't be commenting here at AfD in the first place. Guy1890 (talk) 02:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"as the actual main article to the list is forever deleted" > Penthouse Pets ? ....., I do take AFD seriously but I also have a sense of humour ...... –Davey2010^Talk 07:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know the AFD's closed but I've struck my !vote and I apologize for the above - I know this may sound stupid but I assumed everyone here knew it was a "Hottie" !vote but obviously not so I'll try and refrain from making them in future. –Davey2010^Talk 13:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable - Penthouse Pet of the Year 2010.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pet of the Year, like Playmate of the Year, isn't an award; it's a job. The person who "wins" it does promotional work for the publication. Playmates of the Year get more coverage than Pets do, but they don't necessarily get individual articles. About half the Playmates of the Year in the current millennium don't have individual articles, reflecting the fact that some of them haven't generated the level of coverage needed to demonstrate notability. More than half the Pets of the Year don't have individual articles, either, and the ones that do typically satisfy the awards standards of PORNBIO (with a few meeting WP:ENTERTAINER for mainstream media appearances). A Pet of the Year article was deleted with little disagreement just last month. Consensus and practice call for case-by-case evaluation. Ms "Vixen" fails PORNBIO and has no nontrivial mainstream credits; there's no claim she otherwise has coverage satisfying the GNG. Therefore, the article should be deleted. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets - While I am still not willing to concede that being a Penthouse Pet of the Year is non-notable and I have not done an extensive search on the subject under consideration here, it appears that the best option at this time for this article would be to redirect it as suggested above. As an aside (since I'm not clear what the inclusion guidelines for this are/were), I'm not sure that information from this article apparently appearing on "Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 13 July 2010" is of any meaning to this discussion here. Guy1890 (talk) 08:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Shotgun" AFD, let's see if we can form some consensus to do some particular action. Courcelles (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surely we have a clear consensus. Davey is voting keep because he likes the look of her and expects his vote to be discounted. Hilary always votes keep and is not making a policy based argument. The 4 other voters here all agree she does not merit an article. 3 of us think she fails GNG while Guy hasn't commented on GNG and should therefore be presumed to have no evidence that she meets it. What does that leave us? A clear consensus not to have an article - the obvious final state is the redirect. The only issue is whether to delete first. I would argue that with no arguments credibly put forward that the content here is reliable sourced to GNG standard we delete as its a BLP - but what we actually do falls firmly to the discretion of the closing admin. (Note that this isn't suitable for a NAC and I will go straight to DRV if one is attempted). Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe that the Penthouse Pet of the Year satisfies PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been barely two months since a Pet of the Year was deleted after an AFD where no other participant supported this claim. We've had a solid consensus for some time that Playmates of the Year don't always merit individual articles, and they're almost universally regarded as more notable that Pets. I think this issue has been pretty well settled, absent a convincing new argument. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2015 (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.