Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claudia Costa (2nd nomination)


 * 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 / keep.  Ron h jones (Talk) 01:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Claudia Costa
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

Previous (recent) AFD was closed as no consensus/keep after an editor who favored deletion made a joke "keep" !vote, see DRV here. DRV endorsed original close, calling for another AFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I noted in the 1st AFD that the article made an assertion that she was a playmate in Playboy Mexico, and in the DRV someone confirmed that with a link.  My question before, as now, is whether that is sufficient for notability.--Milowent (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that the applicable language in WP:PORNBIO is intended to refer only to playmates from the US edition. Playboy has about 40 national editions outside the US, but those generally don't generate the level of coverage needed to satisfy the GNG. And I don't believe that non-US centerfolds are included in the pertinent categories, either. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 06:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 00:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete, the main claim to notability (being playmate) is unsourced, and the acting roles appear to be quite minor. Does not seem to meet WP:ENT at this point.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Weak Keep: Err ... it took me all of ten seconds to find a JPG of the November 2009 cover clearly stating that Costa was, indeed, the POTM in that issue .  Ravenswing  13:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is not the cover of the main/US edition, and therefore is not sufficient to demonstrate notability. The Playmate for November 2009, as the term is used in the relevant guideline, is one Kelley Thompson . Note, for example, this listing of 2003 playmates for the Mexican edition of the magazine; only those who appeared as US centerfolds have articles and are included on the relevant lists/categories. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that's an interesting premise. What makes a PMOM from the US edition notable, and one from the Mexican edition not?  I'd be interested in you directing me to the guideline stipulating so. Interestingly enough, criterion #3 of WP:PORNBIO is "Is a Playboy Playmate."  The Playmate article doesn't stipulate "American editions only."    Ravenswing  16:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's clearly a consensus usage. All of the relevant categories using "Playmate" in the title limit the included articles to US edition playmates, as do all of the relevant lists. (I won't say one might slip through here or there, but I haven't seen any.) In the substantive articles, every listed Playmate has appeared in the US edition and the only date references are to the US editions. From the Mexican edition listing I messed up/left out of my earlier post, it's eas to see that only Playmates with US edition appearances (eg, Marketa Janska) are categorized/listed as "Playmates"; the others generally don't have articles, and aren't otherwise listed in related articles without some sort of Playboy US publication. If you check this listing, you see more than a dozen different November 2009editions of Playboy (and there are clearly even more), each with their own Playmate . On a parallel, Tanja Szewczenko, an Olympic skating medalist who appeared only in the German edition (twice), isn't included in any of the relevant Playboy lists, and has only one (qualified) mention in the Playboy articles.  I think the standard practice is well-established; perhaps it would help to modify the text of the guideline to reflect what has been previously undisputed in practice. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep in agreement with User:Ravenswing. Being in a version of Playboy does not nessessarily make one a porn star, as many playmates have never been in porn films and many porn actresses have never been in Playboy... so I'm comfortble falling back upstairs to WP:GNG for her meeting WP:BIO. But isn't the Spanish version of Playboy published by the same folks who publish the United States version? If the two apples grow from the same tree, perhaps we shouldn't be so Anglocentric here on en.Wikipedia, as Spanish notability is notability none-the-less.  Anyone from Project WP:CSB care to offer an opinion?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "But isn't the Spanish version of Playboy published by the same folks who publish the United States version?" This generally isn't true for Playboy's international editions. The US company licenses trademarks and content to an independent partner, which creates the magazine independently.  See, for example, this article/interview, which says clearly that each "edition" is really a separate magazine, "It will be created by a [local] staff and for [local] readers." As the articles on the Brazilian and Japanese editions point out, these editions are franchises put out by different publishers; they shouldn't automatically WP:INHERIT notability from the parent, and certainly shouldn't serve as conduits to pass the original notability on further.  It's not a systematic bias issue, but reflects the relative prominence of the magazines in their respective markets.  Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply: Fair enough. What is your basis for assuming that Playboy is a significantly less important magazine in Mexico (say) than it is in the US?  You suggest that leaving out any references to foreign Playmates is due to consensus, but that implies a definite decision was made to do so and that the subject was actually raised.  Was it?    Ravenswing  21:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Even ignoring en.Wikipedia's Anglocentricism, it would seem a non-English version of Playboy magazine, because of its editoroial staff and expertise in context to the subject they present, should be seen as meeting the long-established guidelines for considering contextually reliable sources.... even if non-English. If that might be grudgingly conceded, the subject's notability would then seem to meet the WP:GNG's "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article," and even meet notability through WP:PORNBIO as a Playboy Playmate, no matter what country or language. Certainly, if the caveat in WP:PORNBIO had been written primarily by non-English-language Wikipedians, it might have stressed that non-English sources could be considered.  That its editors were presumedly mostly English-language Wikipedians, I do not think we may assume that their not being more precise means that the United States version of Playboy is the only one that can be considered reliable in this context.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was my take. If people want to tighten up PORNBIO to define #3 as US Edition Only, I'm sure they can do so, but lacking explicit consensus on the subject, I can't imagine defining a consensus that hasn't yet existed.    Ravenswing  23:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But Playboy magazine is explicitly defined in its article as "American men's magazine," and all the related list articles and categories relate to the American edition only. There's a strong consensus practice here, and the burden of changing the standing interpretation, which was entirely noncontroversial until this AFD, should be on the editors who want to change it. There's no "definite decision" to point to because this was generally accepted, with no contrary opinions expressed. Comparing the coverage for the Mexican playmates with no US edition or US-internet publication is exceptionally limited --just using the listing I pointed out earlier, the February 2003 M-PM has only 84 GHits, March 2003 8180, April 2003 411. The corresponding GHits for the US-PMs: 26,600; 37,000; 229,000. (The January M-PM has an excessively generic name to search.) There's just no basis for believing that non-US edition Playmates generate significant coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply: Except, of course, the International Editions section of that article, as well as the factoid "The oldest playmate ever to be in the Playboy magazine is the Dutch Patricia Paay," who appeared in the December '09 Dutch edition, the celebrities listed for foreign editions, the extensive discussion of underage Playmates in the Playboy Playmate article which highlights those Playmates in foreign editions where the age of consent is under eighteen, and that your assertion that criterion #3 = US Edition Only is "generally accepted" lacks the slightest bit of evidence beyond your personal opinion.   Ravenswing  00:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That "factoid" is inaccurate and was added just a few days ago, and should be removed; Patricia Paay is not a "Playmate" in any December 2009 edition or any other date; see for example here . The "discussion" of underage Playmates is limited to Playmates who appeared in the US edition, some of whom appeared in other editions, some of whom didn't. When you look, for example, at List of people in Playboy by birthplace, List of people in Playboy 1953-1959, List of people in Playboy 1960-1969, List of people in Playboy 1970-1979, List of people in Playboy 1980-1989, List of people in Playboy 1990-1999, List of people in Playboy 2000-2009 and List of Playboy Playmates of the Month, the listings and references refer only to the US edition; the list of Playmates is expressly limited to the US edition. The practice was evident long before I began editing; it's not an issue I had any hand in until this came up, as I recall. Can you find any prior discussions where a non-US PM was kept on that basis? I don't recall ever seeing an article even listing a non-US PM without some other claim of notability; this one is a remnant of the time all US Cyber Girls were treated as notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep meets WP:NOTABILITY as per her inclusion in a version of Playboy RP459 (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2009 (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.