Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Rovero


 * 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   no consensus to delete. Though partially derailed by justifiable objections to the mass nomination, it does appear that this particular article is better-sourced than some. Taken on its own merits (rather than en masse with other Playmate articles) there's a vague consensus that this is sufficiently sourceable to conform with policies - although further efforts to merge or redirect it are not excluded. ~ mazca  talk 12:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Jennifer Rovero

 * – ( 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 03:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - did you actually do a quick google search?          Clearly a notable individual with coverage from many news sources ranging from USA Today, Las Vegas Sun, and others, and this is just a quick sampling. BelloWello (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2001. 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. Virtually all of the non-Playmate coverage for the subject is tabloidery for her association with Paris Hilton, which doesn't demonstrate genuinely independent notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:32, 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)


 * Redirect A borderline case. Probably notable, but not quite enough coverage to make a merge with List of Playboy d Playmates of 2001 inapproprate. Epbr123 (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - No playmatehood exception to GNG or WP:BASIC. Google News search reveal plenty of news coverage to satisfy BASIC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete this is about the definition of why we have, and need, NOT TABLOID. The coverage is about totally insignificant things, and thus fails GNG.     DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 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) 13:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I use tabbed browsing. Your characterization of my action is failed. Surely, some few articles will end up being kept. But do you thing the balance of deletions/non-deletions among my nominations will be different from that of an usual AfD day? --Damiens .rf 14:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you used WP:Twinkle, an automated tool, for the mass AfD nominations. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Tabbed browsing is what accounts for "100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute". --Damiens .rf 15:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The main thing is that WP:BEFORE was clearly ignored and the result is a huge mess that is left for others here to clean up. Carrite (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're honestly care about it, WP:BEFORE was not ignored. It may be the case that this or that article ultimately comes out not to be deleted, but it will not be more likely to happen in my nominations than in it is in general. Let's focus on the deletion discussion instead of on the deletion nominator, for the benefit of the project. --Damiens .rf 19:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - I don't think she's notable by virtue of being a Playmate alone, but there seems to be just about enough coverage of her in reliable sources to justify an article. Robofish (talk) 23:11, 4 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.