Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronological List of Playboy Playmates


 * 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 no consensus.  Citi Cat   ♫ 01:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Chronological List of Playboy Playmates

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is just a rehash of a larger and more thorough listing that are in the pages entitled: List of people in Playboy 1953-1959, 60-69, and so on. There's no point to having this page in addition to those others. Dismas |(talk) 12:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I'm not proposing that this data doesn't belong here at all. I'm just saying it's duplicative when we have the other articles.  Dismas |(talk) 00:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, strongly. Nothing said in the nomination makes a case for deleting this nicely formatted index page.  The playmate of the month is somewhat distinct from a list of all the people featured in the magazine.  The list is self-referencing: to verify any given entry, all that must be done is to consult the issue at issue.  Hostility to Playboy magazine is not grounds for deleting anything. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hostility? If you looked at my edits or the articles I've started, you'd see I'm not hostile towards Playboy or porn in general.  The page is nicely formatted but it's a rehash of info that is already here and already in chrono order. Dismas |(talk) 13:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My bad - I was responding more to an comment that appears directly below this, and which seeks to label something as "trivia", but that may be a bad edit to the AfD page itself, or not belong to this one. It doesn't appear on this page. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is more user friendly than the other lists, catering for anyone who wants the basic facts (who, when) without any clutter. Brandon97 13:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above. However, the names of the months must be translated.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   14:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Clear organizational value here, akin to that of the US program schedules. I would honestly rather look at this page than the other lists, though I do see they have other things.  But the concept of a Playboy Playmate is sufficiently distinct that it can merit identification.  Given that it's a month-by-month thing, this would seem to be the logical way to organize it.  FrozenPurpleCube 14:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. wikipediatrix 16:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom. As nom says, this list is replicated in its entirety in the more complete "Lists of" lists, which are likewise organized into a table.  "We like this table better aesthetically" is a poor reason to keep a duplicate article.    Ravenswing  16:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I feel it's a great reason to keep an article of this type. The value of data is shaped by how accessible it is, and in this case, I think it's quite a bit higher in this format than the other.  The fact is, sometimes redundancy is a part of presentation, and given that there's no real cost to having another page, but a real advantage, I find the argument of duplication warranting deletion lacking. FrozenPurpleCube 17:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete We already have a list of List of Playmates of the Year and I see no need to document everyone who was a playmate/was on every issue of a magazine Corpx 16:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that issue would be addressed with regards to the other pages as well, not simply this one. However, I think you're perhaps ignoring the notability of being a Playboy playmate, which is actually a fairly notable bit of status.  At least as much as being a pro sports player.  FrozenPurpleCube 17:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Being a playmate is notable, but I dont think the same is true for a list of them.  This would be like documenting the Big XII offensive player of the week since they started handing out the award. Corpx 18:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree, being a Playboy Playmate is clearly far more notable than the Big 12 player of the week. It's closer to the Heismans or Superbowl MVPs.  Plenty of women are identified as a Playboy Playmate in news articles, there's enough books and videos on them to show that there is an economic impact to the designation as well.  FrozenPurpleCube 19:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would compare Playmate of the Year to the Heisman (we already have a list of playmate of the year) Corpx 00:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * People get identified for *years* afterwards as a Playmate, I'd even say it's a reasonable criteria for notability in a person, much like playing in a pro-sport. I don't know that the same is true for Big XII offensive player of the week. But to be honest, I don't even know who gives out that award, and I really don't care. If you, or somebody else wants to develop a page about that, feel free, I've got no objection.  I'd still say that it's more accurate to compare being a Playboy Playmate to something like winning the Heisman or a Superbowl MVP.  Of course, if you win one of those you're likely notable for other things, but that's often true of being a Playmate.  Doesn't mean this isn't a useful table.  FrozenPurpleCube 02:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Being a Playboy playmate is no different than being featured on the cover or SI or TSN or ESPN the mag, or PEOPLE or any other magazine.  While being a playmate is indeed notable recgonition, I do not think its any more notable than the other magazines Corpx 02:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is quite different. Being on the cover of those magazines isn't used to identify the person (though it *could* be used to demonstrate notability since it is recognition by a third-party and usually includes in-depth coverage within the magazine), while being a Playboy Playmate, well...it is an identifier that can be considered as defining enough to merit an article on the person.  Much like say, being on the Yankees baseball team.  This is  an article which takes existing data about a given recognition and collates it.  And as far as it goes, the articles on Sports Illustrated and The Swimsuit issue do go into some depth as regarding the covers.  Whether or not they should go into further detail, I don't know, but I wouldn't object to it out of hand. I don't know about the other magazines to even guess whether or not there's anything to their covers, but their articles aren't exactly that good.  Could use some improvement in a lot of ways.  OTOH, there is List of athletes on Wheaties boxes which is somewhat similar in nature.  I wouldn't mind a Chronological version of it. FrozenPurpleCube 03:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I think that should be deleted too.  I think the frequency of crowning the title is my problem.   Somebody who is crowned every month is not worth documenting here.   The same to the Wheaties box where it the frequency is also pretty high.   Corpx 04:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a personal objection, and one where I disagree. Every month being too often but once a year not being too often is quite arbitrary.  It's the notability of the title/award/whatever you call it that matters.  Not the frequency.  I sense that at least part of your objection is to the number of awards, but let's consider pro sports.  Being a member of the Yankees, or the Titans, or whoever is sufficient grounds for an article.  Do any of those teams add more than 12 players a year?  I don't know, but I think it's quite possible.  But hey, you want to nominate the Wheaties page for deletion, go right ahead.  I suspect there won't be a consensus for its deletion.  .  But hey, maybe I'm wrong and the plethora of third-party sources noting the various teams and individuals being on the box won't matter.  FrozenPurpleCube 04:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont think we have a list of Players signed by Yankees or Player transactions by the Titans.  The frequency is what is making it pointless to maintain this list.     Corpx 07:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Once a month is hardly so frequent an updating as to make it pointless as it's hardly difficult. And I don't know how often the Template:New York Yankees roster is updated, it looks like there's a regular pattern of edits, but some may just be housekeeping.  (And not to mention, but there's more than one MLB team to update)  However 2007 New York Yankees season and the thousands of other sports with listing by seasons are clearly more frequent.  I see a game every day this week.  And there are lots of others.  Portal:Current events requires frequent updates to stay current, don't you think?  Sorry, but your argument is unconvincing, even if timeliness were a real concern in this case.  FrozenPurpleCube 16:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I looked at the Yankees article and it does not look like it lists (or mentions) every time somebody is sent down or called up, or the "transaction log" as they call it.   Something similar would be the NFL Rookie of the Week or any other award that's crowed with such frequency.   Corpx 16:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps you need to look more closely at the template itself. Seems to me that it's meant to be kept up to date.  Just like the season article is meant to be kept up to date.  Thus your argument doesn't seem to be based on sound objections where there are clearly examples of frequent updating in existence..  I don't know that there's any particular notice given to being an NFL Rookie of the Week that compares to being a Playboy Playmate.  Especially since any NFL player has an article by default simply by playing in the NFL.   FrozenPurpleCube 17:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The schedule in the season article is kept because the season as a whole is worthy of coverage.   If New York Yankees 2006-07 Schedule existed, I would also want it deleted.  Corpx 18:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So would I, because there's no overlap that way in Baseball seasons. It starts in the spring and ends in the fall, unlike other sports which start in the fall and end in the winter of the next year or even the spring.  But you *really* need to look at 2007 New York Yankees season.  You are clearly missing something.  Did you not read down the page?  FrozenPurpleCube 18:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Brandon97 is right that this page is presented better than the other ones the nominator mentions.  However I question the notability of the list (in either form), so I refuse to offer an opinion on which is better.  If a later AfD lists both sets of lists for being non-notable, I will support Delete. &mdash;gorgan_almighty 16:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Corpx. Taken alone, this is an essential piece of pop culture that definitely is not trivial. But there is already a list of playmates of the year, so this is repetitive and useless. VanTucky  (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is an unneeded duplication of information stored in other articles. --After Midnight 0001 01:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Really, I think this is a helpful concentration of the information found in other articles. I have yet to see any other articles with which this is an exact duplicate.  FrozenPurpleCube 03:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, essentially a duplicate of the list articles and really unnecessary. Has no context and is just tables. Wikipedia is not a directory. --Core desat 03:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Context is easily addable and a lack of said context is not a reason for deletion. And I see nothing in WP:NOT that explicitly prohibits pages of tabular data, in fact, WP:NOT (1) says "Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference.".  This page is exactly that.  And I continue to point out, that this list collects information in a more useful form than found elsewhere.  Sorry, but I'm just not seeing the argument for duplication being valid.  If I'm looking for who was a Playmate for a given month in 10 separate years, I can look at this page, or I can what, look at a 3-4 others?  Which is more effective?  FrozenPurpleCube 14:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument of sorts. Yes, I'm sure that there might be someone out there with a burning desire to see a table where one can easily see every November Playmate in history.  There could also be someone out there with a burning desire to pick out every Asian playmate from a one-stop chart, but that bit of trivia isn't reflected either.    Ravenswing  18:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I really do find it less than helpful when people just throw out Wikilinks without substantiating the connection to the situation. What exactly are you claiming is OCE about my statement?   Are you arguing that there is no notability to being a Playboy Playmate?  Is there some reason you're not seeing what's helpful about a month-by-month listing?  And as far as mentioning ethnicity goes, that may or may not merit coverage in some form, however, that's a different discussion than this one, which is about representing in tabular form the existing information as to Playboy Playmates.   FrozenPurpleCube 18:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is what others have said: this list is duplicated in its every detail in other articles.  Those other articles even have the exact same tabular style as this one.  It just is arranged in a grid rather than in columns.  I have argued nothing else, nor has anyone else, and your suggestions (now several times repeated) that the popularity of Playmates are at issue or that people don't see what is helpful about a month-by-month listing (which already exists) are at best straw-man arguments.    Ravenswing  19:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I disagree that the duplication is a problem. They don't provide the same factoring that this page does by condensing the information on one page.  This is a more convenient way to do it.  Redundancy is not a bad thing.  And in any case, I did see that Corpx did express some concerns about notability, as well as a concern about updating it.  Pardon me for discussing those concerns.  And your remark wasn't clear as to what you meant, thus I asked for clarification.  If all you're concerned about is the duplication concern, then see my existing reply.  Redundancy is not a problem here.  FrozenPurpleCube 20:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per FrozenPurpleCube. --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - It is definitely a notable thing to be a Playmate, and the month-by-month listing makes sense, as Playboy is a monthly magazine. Ne ra n e i   (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - I find it funny that a list that big only has one redlink, and that's for the October Playmate of this year... I guess there must be a lot of devoted "for the articles" readers amongst us. --Agamemnon2 23:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not a valid deletion reason, since this isn't a developmental article. FrozenPurpleCube 00:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per FrozenPurpleCube RossPatterson 04:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * All the arguments to delete because of duplication are against policy, which says to merge and redirect, not delete duplicate content. However, this list is not duplicative in that by listing only the Playmates it provides a different navigational purpose than the various Lists of people in Playboy, so keep. DHowell 06:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep It's a nice listing and I find the information rather obviously notable, as well as non-duplicative.Salvatore22 22:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC) — Salvatore22 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * 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.