- 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 01:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Alicia Rickter (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 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 03:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Modeling + TV appearances + Google news hits, seems to be notable. Monty845 04:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly notable figure with mentions in the MSNBC [1] and the New York Times [2] among others. BelloWello (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The MSNBC article is an sports article about a notable athlete's with the girls. She is mentioned on passage The article is not about her. Thatś inherited notability. About NYT, I don't have a password so I can't judge. --Damiens.rf 05:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Her TV work might be barely adequate to meet WP:ENT, and together with her Playmate coverage is enough to justify an independent article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, maybe a recurring character on Baywatch is enough to guaranteer you a Wikipedia article. --Damiens.rf 15:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1995. Her television appearances aren't quite enough to meet WP:ENT in my opinion, and nearly all her Google News hits are about her marriage to Mike Piazza. Epbr123 (talk) 08:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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) 13:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per HW.--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:22, 5 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.