Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaëlle Comparat


 * 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   delete. Despite her appearance in the seminal Hot Wax Zombies On Wheels, reliable sourcing remains paramount for a BLP. No prejudice to recreation if such sources are found. Shimeru (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Gaëlle Comparat

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:ENT, with only three small roles in nonnotable films, no indication the subject can meet the GNG or any other specialized guideline. PROD removed without explanation by now-blocked sockmaster. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment if ENT is not seen to apply, why not look up the ladder to WP:GNG and make a decision based upon not one... not two... but appearances in four issues of Playboy "Special Editions" (added per reply below) from 1995 through 1998, factor in her appearances in mainstream film, and then stir in the book mentions?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply. She has no Playboy appearances; the listed appearances are for Playboy "Special Editions," far less prominent and generally regarded as not evidencing notability, as indicated at List of Playboy NSS models, where virtually none of the nonPlaymates have articles. The book references are simply castlists; if the films don't demonstrate notability, the fact that their castlists were published in filmguides doesn't. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I added "Special Editions" to my comment above. It might be seen by editors that a "Special Edition" might even be better than just being a centerfold... as inclusion in them requiring a different set of criteria than those used to choose centerfolds.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that argument makes no sense whatsoever. Playboy "Special Editions" are the much less prestigious photo mags where the company burns off its inventory of photos that weren't used in the main mag, and of models who didn't pass their Playmate tryouts etc. As the long, long lists of models I linked to demonstrates, there's a well-established consensus here that such appearances don't contribute significantly to notability, and models with much longer lists of Playboy SE/NSS credits aren't seen as notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Lets not WP:OSE, and let's please remember WP:CCC. As is seen by the way certian BIO guidelines have been discussed, argued over, and modified over the last few months, if it were to happen that enough editors came to the fore, those recent changes could find themselves subject to a new consensus and be reverted. It is understood that each time someone makes the decision to send something to AFD, a new discussion takes place, the specific article is discussed, and a consensus is reached for that article.  What happens to something else, somewhere else is fine... but this is a new discussion.. not a rehash of ones elsewhere.  As you speak with such assurance up above, does this reflect a personal knowledge as to Playboy's editing policies?  I'd hope the strength or your supposistions is based upon more than opinion or original research.  Perhaps please, you might provide the specific sources you used in making your declaration that the Playboy Special Editions are not so special?  And share please, what sources you found that lead you to imply that Gaëlle Comparat is no more than some cast-off relegated to a throw-away and less significant publication of Playboy Inc.?  And please... no need to divert to a long list of models elsewhere... as this discussion is only about one... and not about others whose articles have not yet been written.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * While consensus can change, there's absolutely no indication that the consensus on PSE/NSS models has, and there's no need to restart the discussion from square one for example of a class where consensus hasn't been disputed. The lack of general notability for the Playboy "Special Edition" should be evident from the fact that the dozens of them share a single article, spun out of the Playboy corporate article; the most successful, the "Book of Lingerie," has only about fifty trivial GNews hits over its more than 20 years of existence, it ought to be impossible for a reasonable person to maintain that it enjoys more than a trivial amount of its parent's notability. Asking what sources I've found to prove that the subject is nonnotable is exactly the wrong question; there aren't any independent reliable sources discussing her -- only, for example, a single GNews hit for a listing of a tv broadcast of movie she was in. I get more GNews hits for my real name than that! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Notable, barely, as per Schmidt. --80.192.21.253 (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete She's primarily known for modeling in Playboy, but she miserably fails WP:PORNBIO. Yilloslime T C  14:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: Due to its having been re-written WP:PORNBIO (still under discussion) no longer applies to Playboy models unless they have also done pornographic films. You may as well state she also fails WP:ATH, and WP:POLITICIAN... equally inapplicable.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting, WP:PORNBIO makes no mention of it not applying to playboy models. At any rate, she also fails WP:ENT, and any other notability criteria you throw at her. And the article is complete bereft of reliable sources--a bad thing for a BLP. Yilloslime T C  22:01, 8 May 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.