297:. 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. I don't believe the article is established as sufficiently identical to the version deleted 7 years ago to justify a G4, but it is very interesting to see that there had been a consensus that long ago that Playmates weren't notable for that status alone.
572:— 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
325:. 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.
577:
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
576:
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
316:
This should have been done after consensus determined
Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Knowledge (XXG) consensus has determined that Knowledge (XXG) is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Knowledge (XXG) later be found, the
639:
There's no significant coverage. The majority of the Google News hits (about three times as many as for this
Playmate, by my rough count) refer to a college athlete. Of what's left, almost all of them mention her in passing, on the order of "also on hand at the boat show/casino promotion/autograph
222:
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
270:
640:
signing were
Playboy Playmates A. B, and C." There is the standard hometown paper "Local Girl Poses for Playboy" story, which doesn't make a significant contribution to notability, and a one-line mention in a short piece on a country singer she briefly dated.
477:
does state that (even) if a given source isn't enough coverage, multiple sources may add up to demonstrate notability. I've repeated that point over and over where it applies. Haven't you noticed that I'm not challenging you on every single afd you posted?
472:
Naw. It's not about wanting to be mysterious. It's about the fact that I am lazy to copy and paste my reviewing workflow since you've afd'd 100 articles, and I'm going through each afd to review the coverage that does exist. The floor of
429:
Bellowello didn't show any coverage about her. He just stated it exists. Restating it here is supposed to make it sound more reliable? Why not just post (here or in the article) examples of such non-trivial coverage?
180:
86:
81:
389:
568:- 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
628:
Relisting notice. The assertion of sources has not been supported by actual citations. Please can we look at the claimed sources to reach a conclusion of whether they meet GNG? Thanks
76:
174:
211:
519:
not add up to notability. Note 6 clarifies the depth of coverage issue. If all of the existing coverage was just a name then of course no bio could be reliably written.
141:
366:
458:
Just like in other playmate Afds, you prefer to keep the mystery than to backup your own assertions. You have been given the chance but you thrown it away. Again. --
415:- Plenty of news coverage per Bellowello. No playmatehood exception to GNG. If the newspapers are covering her for her playmatehood, then that's her notability.
346:
114:
109:
118:
343:
705:
Seems plenty notable to me. And I agree automated tools should not be for mass deletions. That's an unfair burden shift to AfD editors.
497:
explicitly excludes trivial coverage. Being trivially mentioned in a thousand articles would not make you notable. That's right there on
101:
744:
725:
695:
667:
649:
632:
617:
595:
542:
528:
510:
487:
467:
453:
439:
424:
404:
381:
358:
334:
306:
285:
257:
238:
59:
444:
Yeah, and I verified the coverage existed by reviewing the hits through that Google news link. Other editors can go and do the same.
17:
294:
195:
645:
302:
162:
621:
573:
721:
759:
36:
156:
641:
298:
581:
at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way.
758:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
524:
483:
449:
420:
152:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
655:
105:
709:
273:
202:
584:
This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign.
281:
246:
Please notice how this article was deleted before on the very same grounds, being now qualified for
520:
479:
445:
416:
330:
188:
605:
569:
688:
97:
65:
498:
494:
474:
168:
515:
No BASIC does not explicitly exclude/disqualify anything. It acknowledges that added up trivia
663:
591:
400:
377:
354:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
501:
but somehow you can only read what fits your desire to have a directory of playmates here. --
717:
578:
247:
228:
534:
502:
459:
431:
277:
251:
232:
326:
55:
579:
Knowledge (XXG):ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user
737:
683:
659:
629:
614:
587:
396:
373:
350:
135:
713:
608:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
50:
679:
This nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban
752:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
269:
Not only was
Stephanie Playboy's 50th anniversary playmate
533:
Yes it disqualifies trivial coverage. We disagree here. --
390:
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions
87:
Articles for deletion/Stephanie
Heinrich (3rd nomination)
82:
Articles for deletion/Stephanie
Heinrich (2nd nomination)
680:
131:
127:
123:
187:
613:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
227:are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the
201:
212:Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
762:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
654:This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing
388:Note: This debate has been included in the
365:Note: This debate has been included in the
367:list of People-related deletion discussions
387:
364:
342:Note: This debate has been added to the
77:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Heinrich
74:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
622:Stephanie Heinrich (2nd nomination)
272:and has plenty of coverage to meet
72:
24:
735:procedurally and substantively.--
295:List of Playboy Playmates of 2001
1:
229:general notability guideline
317:article can be re-started.
779:
405:20:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
382:22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
359:22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
335:19:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
307:17:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
286:05:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
258:02:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
239:02:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
755:Please do not modify it.
745:17:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
726:17:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
696:02:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
223:solely related to their
60:05:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
668:10:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
650:16:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
633:16:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
618:16:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
596:14:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
543:20:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
529:20:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
511:20:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
488:20:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
468:20:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
454:20:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
440:15:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
425:15:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
344:WikiProject Pornography
71:AfDs for this article:
658:). It is listed now.
642:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
299:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
216:Playmate of the Month
220:Playmate of the Year
574:WP:I DON'T LIKE IT
98:Stephanie Heinrich
66:Stephanie Heinrich
44:The result was
743:
729:
712:comment added by
693:
620:
586:
539:
507:
464:
436:
407:
393:
384:
370:
347:list of deletions
255:
236:
770:
757:
742:
728:
706:
689:
686:
612:
610:
582:
540:
537:
508:
505:
465:
462:
437:
434:
394:
371:
361:
253:
234:
206:
205:
191:
139:
121:
34:
778:
777:
773:
772:
771:
769:
768:
767:
766:
760:deletion review
753:
707:
692:
684:
677:Procedural Keep
603:
566:Procedural Keep
535:
503:
460:
432:
341:
214:. Being chosen
148:
112:
96:
93:
91:
69:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
776:
774:
765:
764:
748:
747:
730:
699:
698:
690:
673:
672:
671:
670:
636:
635:
625:
624:
611:
600:
599:
598:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
521:Morbidthoughts
480:Morbidthoughts
446:Morbidthoughts
417:Morbidthoughts
409:
408:
385:
362:
338:
337:
310:
309:
288:
263:
262:
261:
260:
209:
208:
145:
92:
90:
89:
84:
79:
73:
70:
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
775:
763:
761:
756:
750:
749:
746:
740:
739:
734:
731:
727:
723:
719:
715:
711:
704:
701:
700:
697:
694:
687:
681:
678:
675:
674:
669:
665:
661:
657:
653:
652:
651:
647:
643:
638:
637:
634:
631:
627:
626:
623:
619:
616:
609:
607:
602:
601:
597:
593:
589:
585:
580:
575:
571:
567:
564:
563:
544:
541:
532:
531:
530:
526:
522:
518:
514:
513:
512:
509:
500:
496:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
485:
481:
476:
471:
470:
469:
466:
457:
456:
455:
451:
447:
443:
442:
441:
438:
428:
427:
426:
422:
418:
414:
411:
410:
406:
402:
398:
391:
386:
383:
379:
375:
368:
363:
360:
356:
352:
348:
345:
340:
339:
336:
332:
328:
324:
322:
315:
312:
311:
308:
304:
300:
296:
292:
289:
287:
283:
279:
275:
274:WP:NOTABILITY
271:
268:
265:
264:
259:
256:
249:
245:
244:
243:
242:
241:
240:
237:
230:
226:
221:
217:
213:
204:
200:
197:
194:
190:
186:
182:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
154:
151:
150:Find sources:
146:
143:
137:
133:
129:
125:
120:
116:
111:
107:
103:
99:
95:
94:
88:
85:
83:
80:
78:
75:
67:
64:
62:
61:
57:
53:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
754:
751:
736:
732:
702:
676:
604:
583:
565:
516:
412:
320:
318:
313:
290:
266:
225:playmatehood
224:
219:
215:
210:
198:
192:
184:
177:
171:
165:
159:
149:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
708:—Preceding
175:free images
278:BelloWello
570:WP:BEFORE
397:• Gene93k
374:• Gene93k
351:• Gene93k
327:Dekkappai
248:WP:CSD#G4
738:Milowent
722:contribs
710:unsigned
606:Relisted
499:WP:BASIC
495:WP:BASIC
475:WP:BASIC
323:redirect
291:Redirect
142:View log
660:DumbBOT
630:Spartaz
615:Spartaz
588:Carrite
536:Damiens
504:Damiens
461:Damiens
433:Damiens
252:Damiens
233:Damiens
181:WP refs
169:scholar
115:protect
110:history
714:Wxidea
656:step 3
314:Delete
153:Google
119:delete
685:Monty
196:JSTOR
157:books
136:views
128:watch
124:links
48:. --
16:<
733:Keep
718:talk
703:Keep
664:talk
646:talk
592:talk
525:talk
484:talk
450:talk
421:talk
413:Keep
401:talk
378:talk
355:talk
331:talk
303:talk
282:talk
267:Keep
250:. --
189:FENS
163:news
132:logs
106:talk
102:edit
56:talk
51:Cirt
46:keep
691:845
538:.rf
517:may
506:.rf
463:.rf
435:.rf
395:--
321:NOT
319:Do
293:to
254:.rf
235:.rf
218:or
203:TWL
140:– (
741:•
724:)
720:•
682:.
666:)
648:)
594:)
527:)
486:)
452:)
430:--
423:)
403:)
392:.
380:)
369:.
357:)
349:.
333:)
305:)
284:)
276:.
231:.
183:)
134:|
130:|
126:|
122:|
117:|
113:|
108:|
104:|
58:)
716:(
662:(
644:(
590:(
523:(
482:(
448:(
419:(
399:(
376:(
372:—
353:(
329:(
301:(
280:(
207:)
199:·
193:·
185:·
178:·
172:·
166:·
160:·
155:(
147:(
144:)
138:)
100:(
54:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.