Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jody Hoskins (2nd nomination)


 * 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   delete. Yes, comments by unregistered users do count if they are based on our policies and guidelines.  Sandstein  17:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Jody Hoskins
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

not notable; does not meet WP:BIO. This article is similar to one for Sydney Moon, which was just deleted (see Articles for deletion/Sydney Moon. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 11:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC) - I would add...Move the content that's appropriate. Delete the rest. This article also fails WP:NOTE. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC) 
 * Delete per nom. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: No reliable sources that show notability per WP:BIO. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 13:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * At very least, her Newstand Special appearences should be moved to List of Playboy NSS models G-R.SPNic (talk) 13:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Should have been deleted the first time around. 149.142.220.74 (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was pleasantly surprised when this wasn't deleted the first time around.  As mentioned in the last AFD, being in Playboy for at least eight years should count for something.  And just because someone else's article was deleted doesn't mean this should be. On the list of Playboy NSS models it says "see separate entry"; it would be stupid to delete the article without at least moving her NSS appearances to the list.SPNic (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - 71.138.125.138 (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  01:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BIO because of a lack of coverage in secondary sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There is a rule for this, in WP:PORNBIO and by that rule, the article is fine. It reads in part: "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media."  Well, Playboy counts as a notable mainstream media doesn't it? Dream Focus (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Those bios are trivial and unreliable. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, my mistake. Deleted my comment and added in a different reason to keep, now that I have found the rules about establishing porn star notability. Dream Focus (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: fails WP:BIO. - 68.183.104.7 (talk) 11:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep these many appearances are notable, and if the formal criterion don't allow for this, its a case where the formal rules don't have any real meaning left. Fortunately,  it's a guideline,specifically  admitting exceptions, so I don't even have to say IAR. DGG (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But there is WP:NOTABILITY which is a policy. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 23:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry DGG, but there is no such thing as "zomg notability." Your rationale begs this question to be asked: Why do you think that your notion of what is "obviously" notable should trump Notability? 160.39.213.152 (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete: Fails WP:BIO and I agree with the comments that WP:NOTE is the policy we have to follow and the subject fails that as well. - 128.97.245.150 (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: What is up with all the nonregistered users chiming in? Do their votes count? They shouldn't IMHO (although the last one had a decent explanation). The one who was complaining about someone else's notion of notability was especially rich, since a lot of these proposals, including this one are based on the proposer's notion of notability! BTW, if this article does get deleted, could someone PLEASE move the Playboy appearances to List of Playboy NSS models G-R before you delete?SPNic Just noticed today that the last part has already been addressed in the proposal.  Sorry.(talk) 13:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The proposer's notion of notability seems to be endorsed by the Wikipedia community in WP:N. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are a lot of WIkipedia editors out there who wish to remain anonymous. I don't have a problem with that as long as their justifications here are valid. Besides, even with registered users, they could be the same editor as someone else here anyway. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Does WP:PORNBIO apply here since she's more of a model than a porn star? -- Gmatsuda (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2008 (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.