Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candy Loving


 * 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  03:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Candy Loving

 * – ( View AfD View log )

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 03:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep short answer: yeah it does.  Long answer:  The subject has received additional coverage besides the one issue.  Google News turns up a nice result.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * When I search for her on gnews I got a lot of articles about Halloween and its "candy-loving monsters". Can you find good coverage about the girl?
 * Your short answer did not survive wide community inquiry. --Damiens .rf 05:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay 1 "Playboy Picks Candy Loving", Herald-Journal - May 4, 1979; 2 "Centerfold Full of Loving" Gadsden Times - Dec 5, 1978; 3 "To Help a Marriage, Pose for a Playboy Centerfold" Times Daily - Jan 2, 1979; 4 "Playboy's 25th Anniversary" The Nevada Daily Mail - May 6, 1979; 5 "Playmate Beats Miss America in Bucks" The Bulletin - May 9, 1980; 6 Rabbit Test: 50 Attend Playboy Audition" The Miami News - Apr 27, 1983. That should do for a start.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't that the usual playmatehood coverage? --Damiens .rf 15:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So what? even if it is, it still is enough to surpass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So what it's trivial coverage. --Damiens .rf 16:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The coverage is not trivial but is comprehensive and quite widespread.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless it's trivial because it's still texts about how cute she is, how nice it is to be a playmate... the usual playmatehood text that would be written for any person in her position. --Damiens .rf 09:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Incorrect Articles 3 and 5 provide much more detail than that and most certainly is not "the usual playmatehood text" as you say. Your comments are putting more weight on the argument than the facts show.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Article 3 is definitively the usual playmatehood text and 5 mentions her tangentially. --Damiens .rf 16:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:WABBITSEASON we disagree.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1979. 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. None of the cited coverage is outside the context of her Playmate designation, and much of it amounts to trivial or passing mentions. Not exactly BLP1E, but similar principles should apply unless more durable coverage can be specified. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:02, 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)


 * Keep - Per Paul McDonald. There is no "playmatehood" exception in GNG or WP:BASIC. Nominator is applying a much stricter interpretation of trivia. Read note 6 of BASIC that defines trivia to confirm. He is confusing the depth of coverage requirement with the importance of the topic. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect as proposed above. Merge is a variant on the keep !vote, but if this were to be kept and not redirected I hope that additional sources can be found to expand upon.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  22:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Paul McDonald. I've pretty much removed myself from these playmate AfDs, because some editors are hell-bent on getting the identical content copied into year-by-year articles.  We have thousands of actor bios that get by on less, though.--Milowent • talkblp-r  22:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We all know that other crap abound wikipedia, but this should never be taken as a valid AfD argument. --Damiens .rf 23:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * and people should read articles before nominating them for deletion.  in any event, its often a valid argument, as WP:OSE says, "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes."  my point is that actresses with less notability often get kept in AfD as sufficiently notable, so let's be careful before we draw the line higher for former playmates.--Milowent • talkblp-r  03:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per PMcD. Timewasting, trolling nom. --212.137.70.194 (talk) 13:33, 3 May 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 ANI 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)
 * Comment I agree. WP:CFB encountered something called the West incident a few years back when an enthusiastic deletionist was able to delete one head coach article and that snowballed into massive nominations, many of which were deleted and now have been 100% restored.  Mass deletions are quite disruptive.  If the article is truly not notable, that's one thing--but when it would lead to a bunch of deletions and then restorations once people catch up to what's happening, that's a problem.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:54, 4 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.