Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Quist


 * 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 I know that these bunnies are controversial, but there are some awards/distinctions that might prompt people to look up specific individuals. Being the playmate of the year or centerfold is, one of those distinctions. Plus the fact that the numbers/trend are in favor of keeping... I think this is fairly straight forward.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Janet Quist

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No assertion of general notability, playmate citation and imbd where she is claimed to have uncredited parts in four shows, nothing of any note. Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom. No reliable sources to establish notability. Fails GNG/BIO etc;. EuroPride (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: I see assertions of notability, apparently article is already being edited since nomination.--Milowent (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Besides being a Playboy Playmate, which is a highly notable modeling title in an of itself, she appears to have been a "Bunny of the Year", according to Lockhart Post-Register; Lockhart, Texas; Thursday, March 06, 1980; Page 7. Morbidthoughts has added cited evidence of notability-- handprints in downtown Austin named a tourist attraction, and appearances in mainstream films. Also, a search through local newspapers shows appearances indicating notability. e.g.: Appeared at the 500 World of Wheels show with Minnesota Fats: (Kokomo Tribune Kokomo, Indiana; Friday, January 12, 1979; Page 4); autographing posters at Splash Day, Galveston (Galveston Daily News Galveston, Texas; Tuesday, May 06, 1980; Page 6)/ appearing at the Armadillo Alympics in 1980 & 1981 (New Braunfels Herald-Zeitung; New Braunfels, Texas; Tuesday, August 26, 1980; Page 5 / Seguin Gazette Enterprise; Seguin, Texas; Thursday, October 23, 1980; Page 6 & New Braunfels Herald-Zeitung; Sunday, August 23, 1981; Page 5) and the Cancer Bowl V (Lockhart Post-Register; Lockhart, Texas; Thursday, March 06, 1980; Page 7 - this article labels her "1978 Playboy Plamate bunny of the year"), etc... All indications of a high-profile, notable individual. Dekkappai (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Coverage from multiple newspapers satisfies GNG, even if the mention is trivial every time. Her notability is based on her status as a playboy playmate which the sources keep mentioning. Even if it's just a signing appearance, the newspapers think it's notable enough to print. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, going through the newspaper listings I cited above, it's obvious that the US media considers being a Playmate to be "notable". It's the main hook for her appearances... Too bad WP "notability" criteria are based on a changeable, subjective "consensus" of editors, rather than something objective and verifiable... Dekkappai (talk) 18:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails GNG in my opinion. Overall coverage is too trivial. Epbr123 (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Trivial coverage by local press is insufficient to satisfy the GNG, especially when it's little more than a schedule of promotional appearances. The average high school quarterback gets more press coverage, and more substantial press coverage than this, i there's a newspaper based in his town. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * re high school quarterback - hardly, but if he did, and was a playboy playmate, i think he would be notable.--Milowent (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Dekkappai --80.192.21.253 (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC).
 * By what reasoning? EuroPride (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Reasoning? Because I !voted the opposite way. Check out the editing history, noting especially comments like this one . Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, check out the way I ruthlessly agreed with your 'keep' on Wildenstein... --80.192.21.253 (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 21:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * By the reasoning that she's more notable than a lame high school quarterback analogy. Come on guys, there is clearly a difference of opinion on these playmate AfDs both generally, and specifically on each one.--Milowent (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I would argue that Playmates of the month were a much more notable phenom in the 60's and 70's than they are now, when playboy had a larger subscription base and was in the forefront of culture. so once notable, always notable. however, im biased in her case, as i had that issue back then, and will recuse myself from voting:)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I know that knowledge of or interest in the subject is generally frowned upon in these AfDs, but I don't think it completely disqualifies one from !voting, Mercurywoodrose... ;) Dekkappai (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dekkappai and Mercurywoodrose. -- Nuujinn (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mercurywoodrose. Personally I consider all Playmates of the Month notable, as it remains the highest distinction in the profession, but it was certainly true through at least the 70s,    DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 14 June 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.