Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Echo Johnson


 * 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   redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1993. The consensus is clear and the sources have been considered. Redirect after deletion as a plausible search term Spartaz Humbug! 16:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Echo Johnson

 * – ( 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 02:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1993. 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) 17:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability 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) 19:22, 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) 20:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep All Google news results for her name and the word "Playmate" are sites with paywalls. But she apparently got some mention in some of them.
 * Austin American-Statesman : Heat-seeking missile looks just like Mike
 * Pay-Per-View - Austin American-Statesman - NewsBank - Jun 20, 1998
 * ... Center on Aug 23 Since Echo Johnson's parents named her after reflected ... her a pretty good life The Austinbased Playboy Playmate just got back from a ...


 *  D r e a m Focus  09:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: no significant coverage, and no indication that she's known for anything other than Playboy. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - taking your clothes of in playboy is not a notable thing to report. No objection to the list redirect though - Off2riorob (talk) 08:59, 4 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) 13:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per the Albuquerque and Austin paper coverage cited in the article. I looked bypassed the paywall using infotrac. Playmatehood coverage is not disqualified from the GNG. Importance of the content is not the same as depth of coverage when designating trivial under that basis. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep In this particular case, the articles in the Austin American-Statesman and, perhaps to a lesser extent, the Albuquerque Tribune appear to amount to significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Together with her appearances in Playboy, notability seems has been established. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 10:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't this just local paper doing the usual trivia? --Damiens .rf 10:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose they're just human-interest pieces, but when combined with the Playboy appearances and any interview subsequent to her modeling career (e.g. this), I think notability is established, if only barely. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 11:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Upon further reflection, I've struck my previous comments. The sources here are better than those in most of the other Playmate AfDs, but I'm not convinced that they're enough to satisfy WP:BIO. I won't lose any sleep if this article is kept – since becoming a Playmate, Johnson can no longer be described as a low-profile individual – but I think I'd prefer a redirect as described by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 13:16, 6 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.