Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer LeRoy


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Baseball   Watcher  20:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Jennifer LeRoy

 * – ( 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 02:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 *  Keep  Lots of results in google news, article already has a reference from 5 years after playmate appearance. I don't understand how this person fails notability. Article needs improvement with additional references, not deletion. Monty  845  03:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A lot of the gnews hist are about a tavern owner named Jennifer LeRoy. Is it the same person? --Damiens .rf 04:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, looks like she may not be, still though she appears to have gotten some press coverage, though not enough on its own to establish notability. Monty  845  04:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban . Monty  845  03:08, 14 May 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) 16:23, 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) 19:20, 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) 20:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - She has articles in the Denver and Colorado newspapers about her. No playmatehood exception for GNG or WP:BASIC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 5 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) 13:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Redirect and merge to List of Playboy Playmates of 1993. Although she does not pass WP:N on her own, she could still be a search term, and whatever information is available here could simply be merged into the main article. All due respect to Carrite, but the use of automated deletion nominating bots does not seem to fall under the purview of the AfD board; from my understanding, the AfD board is just to discuss the possible deletion of articles. If there is a decision from higher up saying that these articles have to be renominated manually or whatnot, that is fine. However, I feel that keeping them all on principle would be counterproductive. This argument will be copied and pasted, with slight modification, in the debate sections for all applicable AfDs of this ilk. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Morbidthoughts.--Milowent • talkblp-r 00:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Morbidthoughts' argument, simply put, is that oneshot hometown newspaper coverage is enough to satisfy the GNG. (Well, maybe a little too simply put.) We don't accept that for any other field; why should we accept it for Playmates? We'd end up with articles about every band that signed a record contract but never had an album released; for every writer who ever had a property optioned but never made into a film; for every amateur athlete who's had a really good game. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's just a slippery slope argument. A playmate is nothing like a great weekend golfer.  Among actress/models, there's a lot of variation in how the "rules" should apply on a case by case basis.--Milowent • talkblp-r  13:34, 13 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.