Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaime Hammer


 * 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)

Jaime Hammer

 * – ( 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 02:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete She was never actually Playboy Playmate of the Month, which is about where I draw the line. She earned many recognitions that are a slight cut below.  Hard to give any other credible reason for a keep.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - An in depth profile from the Phoenix New Times in addition to numerous other coverage in reliable sources leaves no question as to her notability. BelloWello (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * An Arizona newspaper interviewed the Arizona playmate by the time she appeared on Playboy's cover. We can safely expect this to happen to almost every playmate. This is the kind of playmatehood coveragethat I predicted on the nomination.
 * Among those numerous other coverage in reliable sources you know, can you show us some of the non-trivial ones? They would justify keeping biography. --Damiens .rf 06:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a Playmate, but a Playboy "special editions" model, Penthouse Pet, and not-quite-hardcore-porn(yet) performer who doesn't have any coverage to satisfy WP:PORNBIO, WP:ENT, or the GNG (yet). The "in-depth" profile contains very little non-trivial information about the model, especially compared to the amount of kvetching she does about how little Playboy actually paid her. (It also reports her claim she would never pose for Penthouse, and we can see how accurate that was . . . ) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:46, 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)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 15:04, 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)
 * 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)
 * Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban . Monty  845  03:18, 14 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.