Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Santiago


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Christina Santiago

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Yet another non-notable playmate. Damiens .rf 19:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't believe that any PMOY has ever been deleted. Looking at the template all names have links. In fact, I believe that all PMOMs have been considered notable. Subject is not notable for other reasons, but PMOY is a major recognition in its own right.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You put this better than I could. --Damiens .rf 15:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The majority of them have done nothing beyond being a PMOY. That's why we no longer consider PMOY a criteria for notability. --Damiens .rf 01:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and trout-slap nominator; Playmates of the Year are still notable.SPNic (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep your trout and give us the "significant coverage". --Damiens .rf 21:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Another Playboy-related trout-slap nomination. Playmate of the year is a notable award satisfying PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria.--יום יפה (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2002. Not enough reliably sourced nontrivial information to support an independent article. Unlike most recent PMOYs, she has no significant non-Playboy credits. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, weakly. I'm going to go against my normal grain here and say that a Playmate of the Year would seem to meet the spirit of WP:PORNBIO #1, "Has won a well-known award".  I'd really only reserve this judgement for Playmates though, as they are an iconic part of American society.  I don't see this as extending to Hustler Honeys, Penthouse Pets, etc... Tarc (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, not weakly, but also per Tarc's rationale.--Milowent • talkblp-r 02:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep' - I will have to agree with Tarc, "Has won a well-known award" is met, which makes notability met. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Is "Playmate of the Year" really an award? It's a marketing choice by Playboy management; the selection criteria have nothing (directly) to do with any achievements by the recipient, but on their expected role in promoting the magazine/brand. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The same could be said of any Grammy, Emmy, or Oscar. Worthy candidates often do not win for reasons outside their performances.--Milowent • talkblp-r  11:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it can't. You're absolutely wrong on this. The people who select the awards you cite don't have a direct and immediate financial interest in the outcome. They may have conflicts of interests, and biases, etc, but in general their financial fortunes aren't directly affected by the outcomes. The competition is used to promote the industry, and the outcomes give financial boosts to the winners -- not the people who choose the winners. When you get down to it, the "Playmate of the Year" is chosen on the same basis that my local supermarket picks the cereal that's on the front page of its weekly circular. No matter how much better shredded wheat, or whatever, is than its competition, it doesn't make the front page unless marketing it sells more units. It's not a whole lot different from the process described here, about how another magazine generated its cover features. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:50, 17 April 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.