735:— 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
740:
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
739:
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
481:
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?
204:
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
621:
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
603:(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 of each other", so cannot be combined to demonstrate notability.
465:
482:
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. --
500:: "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,
162:
526:
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'.
731:- 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
239:
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. --
647:
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
123:
193:
156:
503:
501:
280:
260:
257:
589:
Sorry dude, I was directing my previous response thinking you were the nominator. Your point still does not explain my quote from BASIC.
545:
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.
96:
91:
100:
17:
713:
59:
83:
230:
177:
506:
144:
736:
773:
36:
610:
578:
534:
450:
351:
467:
passing GNG. There's no playmatehood exception to GNG and that kind of coverage is not disqualified from notability.
226:
744:
at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way.
138:
678:
772:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
686:
627:
594:
550:
517:
472:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
758:
721:
690:
670:
631:
616:
598:
584:
554:
540:
521:
491:
476:
456:
421:
409:
378:
357:
327:
315:
295:
272:
246:
234:
216:
134:
65:
568:
717:
341:
747:
This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign.
184:
320:
Please, help us by elaborating on that. Being notable in your opinion is not an inclusion criteria. --
87:
682:
623:
590:
546:
513:
468:
170:
732:
509:
440:
496:
The multiple reliable sources revealed in the Google news search I linked satisfies the floor of
653:
641:
497:
754:
291:
268:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
677:
and I keep stating you're confusing depth of coverage with importance of the subject. Hence,
225:. TV credits etc, even if not strictly unrelated to Playboy, justify an independent article.
150:
387:
374:
311:
741:
662:
483:
415:
321:
240:
210:
79:
71:
661:
This follow right after the passage you quoted, but you removed it, loosing context. --
49:
742:
Knowledge (XXG):ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user
750:
287:
264:
117:
370:
307:
209:
are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria.
567:' means that sources address the subject directly in detail" -- which is what
606:
574:
530:
446:
347:
439:
films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", so fails
386:
Television appearances listed in the article prove she is notable.
563:
coverage, which is what the coverage you link to exhibits, with "'
766:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
508:. It's clear that you haven't done any due dilligence under
113:
109:
105:
169:
183:
194:Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
776:). No further edits should be made to this page.
645:
8:
279:Note: This debate has been included in the
281:list of People-related deletion discussions
278:
256:Note: This debate has been added to the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
644:conveniently kept out the passage:
414:They are too trivial. See above. --
622:(reprints) or quotes one another.
24:
652:Knowledge (XXG), Basic criteria,
1:
793:
422:17:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
410:08:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
379:07:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
328:01:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
316:01:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
296:22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
273:22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
247:04:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
235:02:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
217:02:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
306:- Notable in my opinion.
769:Please do not modify it.
205:solely related to their
32:Please do not modify it.
759:14:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
722:19:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
691:20:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
671:20:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
632:20:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
617:20:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
599:20:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
585:19:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
555:19:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
541:19:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
522:19:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
492:15:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
477:15:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
457:17:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
358:17:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
332:But they're stating it
258:WikiProject Pornography
66:15:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
658:
342:argument by assertion
227:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
198:Playmate of the Month
565:Significant coverage
559:No, I'm contrasting
369:- per hullaballoo.--
202:Playmate of the Year
737:WP:I DON'T LIKE IT
435:roles in multiple
431:no indication of "
61:Operation Big Bear
44:The result was
749:
667:
488:
419:
325:
298:
284:
261:list of deletions
244:
214:
784:
771:
745:
668:
665:
656:
640:Your quote from
615:
583:
539:
505:(go to page 1b)
489:
486:
455:
417:
406:
403:
400:
397:
394:
391:
356:
340:weight to their
323:
285:
275:
242:
212:
188:
187:
173:
121:
103:
62:
56:
34:
792:
791:
787:
786:
785:
783:
782:
781:
780:
774:deletion review
767:
729:Procedural Keep
679:WP:WABBITSEASON
663:
657:
651:
613:
604:
581:
572:
537:
528:
484:
453:
444:
404:
401:
398:
395:
392:
389:
354:
345:
255:
196:. Being chosen
130:
94:
80:Lauren Anderson
78:
75:
72:Lauren Anderson
64:
60:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
790:
788:
779:
778:
762:
761:
725:
724:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
683:Morbidthoughts
674:
673:
659:
649:
637:
636:
635:
634:
624:Morbidthoughts
609:
591:Morbidthoughts
577:
547:Morbidthoughts
533:
514:Morbidthoughts
469:Morbidthoughts
459:
449:
426:
425:
424:
381:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
350:
300:
299:
276:
252:
251:
250:
249:
191:
190:
127:
74:
69:
58:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
789:
777:
775:
770:
764:
763:
760:
756:
752:
748:
743:
738:
734:
730:
727:
726:
723:
719:
715:
712:as per HW. --
711:
708:
692:
688:
684:
680:
676:
675:
672:
669:
660:
655:
648:
643:
639:
638:
633:
629:
625:
620:
619:
618:
614:
612:
608:
602:
601:
600:
596:
592:
588:
587:
586:
582:
580:
576:
570:
569:WP:Notability
566:
562:
558:
557:
556:
552:
548:
544:
543:
542:
538:
536:
532:
525:
524:
523:
519:
515:
511:
507:
504:
502:
499:
495:
494:
493:
490:
480:
479:
478:
474:
470:
466:
464:per coverage
463:
460:
458:
454:
452:
448:
442:
438:
434:
430:
427:
423:
420:
413:
412:
411:
408:
407:
385:
382:
380:
376:
372:
368:
365:
359:
355:
353:
349:
343:
339:
335:
331:
330:
329:
326:
319:
318:
317:
313:
309:
305:
302:
301:
297:
293:
289:
282:
277:
274:
270:
266:
262:
259:
254:
253:
248:
245:
238:
237:
236:
232:
228:
224:
221:
220:
219:
218:
215:
208:
203:
199:
195:
186:
182:
179:
176:
172:
168:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
136:
133:
132:Find sources:
128:
125:
119:
115:
111:
107:
102:
98:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
76:
73:
70:
68:
67:
63:
57:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
768:
765:
746:
728:
709:
646:
605:
573:
564:
560:
529:
461:
445:
436:
432:
428:
388:
383:
366:
346:
337:
333:
303:
222:
207:playmatehood
206:
201:
197:
192:
180:
174:
166:
159:
153:
147:
141:
131:
52:
51:
45:
43:
31:
28:
714:82.41.20.82
561:superficial
433:significant
304:Strong Keep
157:free images
571:requires.
338:tremendous
336:-- giving
733:WP:BEFORE
510:WP:BEFORE
441:WP:NACTOR
288:• Gene93k
265:• Gene93k
53:Wizardman
654:WP:BASIC
642:WP:BASIC
498:WP:BASIC
334:strongly
124:View log
751:Carrite
664:Damiens
485:Damiens
437:notable
429:Delete:
416:Damiens
322:Damiens
241:Damiens
211:Damiens
163:WP refs
151:scholar
97:protect
92:history
371:BabbaQ
308:Jccort
135:Google
101:delete
611:Stalk
607:Hrafn
579:Stalk
575:Hrafn
535:Stalk
531:Hrafn
451:Stalk
447:Hrafn
405:Focus
352:Stalk
348:Hrafn
178:JSTOR
139:books
118:views
110:watch
106:links
16:<
755:talk
718:talk
710:Keep
687:talk
628:talk
595:talk
551:talk
518:talk
473:talk
462:Keep
384:Keep
375:talk
367:Keep
312:talk
292:talk
269:talk
231:talk
223:Keep
171:FENS
145:news
114:logs
88:talk
84:edit
46:keep
666:.rf
487:.rf
418:.rf
324:.rf
243:.rf
213:.rf
200:or
185:TWL
122:– (
757:)
720:)
689:)
681:.
650:—
630:)
597:)
553:)
520:)
512:.
475:)
443:.
377:)
344:.
314:)
294:)
283:.
271:)
263:.
233:)
165:)
116:|
112:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
48:.
753:(
716:(
685:(
626:(
593:(
549:(
516:(
471:(
402:m
399:a
396:e
393:r
390:D
373:(
310:(
290:(
286:—
267:(
229:(
189:)
181:·
175:·
167:·
160:·
154:·
148:·
142:·
137:(
129:(
126:)
120:)
82:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.