Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Lee


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Jessica Lee

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

unsourced BLP. She is notable only for being a Playboy Playmate, but that criterion was cut from PORNBIO and is not currently a valid reason to include an article. Therefore, this BLP does not meet our current standards. The Wordsmith Communicate 17:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: I realize this is part of a good faith mass nomination started by Off2riorob and now apparently expanded by The Wordsmith, so I am posting basically the same comment on all of them.  I understand that WP:PORNBIO was changed recently via Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2010 but I don't think that outcome necessarily reflected true consensus.  The bright line rule of "every playmate gets an article" was much easier to administer and reduced editor overhead time, instead of us spending lots of time deciding that some (most?) playmates get articles and a few get shuffled off into some "playmates of 200x" article.  I guess we'll see, if these articles get deleted, whether they get successively recreated. (see also AfDs of other playmates now pending).  I went back to see what the actual track record is here, and I don't see an AfD for a playmate that resulted in a delete since the summer of 2004 (and there's only one!)  I guess WP:PORNBIO eventually was edited to say that playmates are considered notable to reflect what the AfDs were showing and thus avoid pointless debates. The fact that WP:PORNBIO was recently amended doesn't change the past precedent.  See:
 * Votes for deletion/Stephanie Heinrich (Aug 04 - appears it was a delete, article was recreated in July 05 and not been challenged since)
 * Votes for deletion/Audra Lynn (Oct. 04 keep)
 * Votes for deletion/Dalene Kurtis (Dec. 04 keep)
 * Articles for deletion/Carmella DeCesare (Feb 05 keep)
 * Articles for deletion/Alison Waite (April 06 keep)
 * Articles_for_deletion/Liz_Stewart (March 07 keep)
 * Articles for deletion/Marliece Andrada (Sept 07 keep) (Closer comment: "Absent stronger evidence, there is a longstanding consensus that all Playboy centerfolds are notable, given the fame of the publication both within and without its genre.")
 * Articles for deletion/Kimberly Evenson (May 08 keep)
 * Articles_for_deletion/Charlotte Kemp (Jan 10 keep)
 * Articles for deletion/Kelly Carrington (Feb 10 keep)
 * Articles for deletion/Janet Pilgrim (model) (March 10 keep)
 * Articles for deletion/Margie Harrison (March 10 keep)
 * Articles for deletion/Colleen Farrington (March 10 keep)
 * --Milowent (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO per her mainstream appearances. Epbr123 (talk) 07:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:PORNBIO is currently under discussion, but the article comes nowhere near satisfying the version which is current as I write, and which does not make the claim that being a "Playboy Playmate" automatically confers notability. The idea that notability is automatically conferred by one appearance as a "Playboy Playmate" is ridiculous, and totally out of keeping with the whole Wikipedia idea of notability. To argue in favour of a policy of including all on the ground that it is "easier to administer" is an interesting one. If we are to apply that logic then we need have no more AfD discussions ever, because it will certainbly be "easier to administer" a Wikipedia-wide policy that notability is not required: anything can have an article. Or is there something special about "Playboy Playmates" that makes the effort of deciding notability less worth while than it is in the case of other articles? Judged by normal Wikipedia standards (as seen in, for example, the general notability guideline and the notability guideline for people) she is nowhere near notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete JamesBWatson is correct. Per the recent revision to PORNBIO, playmates are not inherently notable. Her mainstream appearances are not significant enough to justify inclusion. Aditya Ex Machina  17:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Mainstream credits satisfy criteria 4 of PORNBIO. Google News hits satisfies GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Playboy Playmate-- a notable modeling appearance whether recognized by WP today or not-- plus mainstream appearances, plus passes GNG. Dekkappai (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep   The achievement is notable, and the removal from the guideline was without adequate consensus. It's getting much more attention here, and the general community view is fairly obvious.  DGG ( talk ) 07:43, 26 April 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.