Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dasha Astafieva


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Dasha Astafieva

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not notable Off2riorob (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment 55th Anniversary Playmate is more notable than just a random playmate of the month. David V Houston (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per David V. Houston. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 18:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - A perusal of several of the Google News hits convinces me she satisfies the general notability guidelines. The article should be fleshed out more using those sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG,nothing in the text that shows any Notability (people). 55 Anniversary playmate? Why is that notable? Off2riorob (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure does for me. She has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. ie The depth and number of the english sources found in the Google News search satisfy me; not even counting the other languages. The fact that she is the 55th anniversary playmate is often repeated in the coverage by reliable sources shows that it is her sign of notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that being playmate of the month was, until recently, considered notable, but that the PORNBIO(?) guidelines were revised removing that. That suggests to me that most any notability over that level is probably notable.  Whether it should be, or not, ought not to affect this particular nomination, correct?  David V Houston (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - What? Delete Playboy's 55th Anniversary Playmate??? That's nothing less than just plain crazy! Glenn Francis (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why, what is notable about the 55 anniversary playmate? Nothing at all. It's a list, anniversary playmates. Off2riorob (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * She is already on this list of playboy playmates 2009 here with a picture and everything, she fails all notability for her own biography.

Off2riorob (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Glenn Francis (talk) 04:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Those lists that you are using as an example were created because of the slash and burn campaign that went on after the Playmate clause was removed from PORNBIO. I'd rather not have them at all but barring that, I'd prefer that they just point to the main article. I've been trying to save anything that you seem to want deleted.  That's the reason for the duplication.  Dismas |(talk) 05:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: I realize this is part of a good faith mass nomination by Off2riorob, so I am posting basically the same comment on all of them.  I understand that WP:PORNBIO was changed recently via Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2010 but I don't think that outcome necessarily reflected true consensus.  The bright line rule of "every playmate gets an article" was much easier to administer and reduced editor overhead time, instead of us spending lots of time deciding that some (most?) playmates get articles and a few get shuffled off into some "playmates of 200x" article.  I guess we'll see, if these articles get deleted, whether they get successively recreated. (see also AfDs of 2010 playmates)--Milowent (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Morbidthoughts. Dismas |(talk) 05:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think people are also missing that she was PMOY for the Ukraine edition of the magazine. Dismas |(talk) 10:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Besides being a Playmate, which is notable whether WP:PORNBIO mentions it specifically or not, she was Playmate of the Year (Ukraine), 55th anniversary playmate (these anniversary playmates are always bigger deals than the regular monthlies), and, incidentally, easily passes GNG. Dekkappai (talk) 06:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Being PMOY and 55th anniversary playmate makes her very notable as per WP:PORNSTAR. --Morenooso (talk) 08:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes GNG per Google News hits. Epbr123 (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep   even if not all the playmates are notable, she is,for the reasons given above. This nomination shows the refusal to recognize first, that there is no general consensus that playmates of the month are non-notable--which is excusable, because this is being tested in the present series of nominations-- but also an apparent belief that no playmate can be notable unless there is notability quite aside from it, regardless of the related circumstances--and there was never any even local agreement on that.  DGG ( talk ) 08:01, 26 April 2010 (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.