Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corinna Harney


 * 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. Procedural keep because the nomination and subsequent discussion is tainted by the noms topic ban. can be immediately relisted. Spartaz Humbug! 14:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Corinna Harney

 * – ( 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 02:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Between google news hits, and movie appearances already in article, this person is clearly notable. Article needs improvement with additional references, not deletion. Monty  845  03:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I may be missing something, but I don't think we can write an article from what I see on her Google News search. Did you find many non-trivial mentions? --Damiens .rf 04:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Several of those articles appear to be substantive coverage, but they are behind pay-walls. Monty  845  04:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban, so keep for that reason as well. Monty  845  03:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1991. 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. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia 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) 19:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Playmate of the Year is a well-known award satisfying criteria 1 of WP:PORNBIO. Several mainstream credits including starring role in The Road Home (2003 film) satisfies criteria 4 of PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:33, 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)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 15:03, 9 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) 14:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - lacks the necessary significant coverage in reliable sources to meet our notability standards. TerriersFan (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Morbidthoughts. Playmate of the Year is sufficient for notability.  We used to have a bright line rule that all playmates were notable so as to avoid excess wasted time on AfD.  Now we enjoy wasting time on these AfDs, but at least we should set the bar here to avoid continued waste of time.  None of this content is going to be deleted regardless of where it resides.--Milowent • talkblp-r  13:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * redirect/merge to the appropriate list. Assuming that she doesn't meet the WP:GNG that is. As a former playboy playmate, her name is a plausible search term, and having a redlink for such an obviously plausible search term is unacceptable. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:37, 9 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.