Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karin and Mirjam van Breeschooten


 * 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. WP:NPASR. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Karin and Mirjam van Breeschooten

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you and your twin sister 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 criteria. Damiens .rf 01:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1989. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk • contribs)
 * Redirect No significant coverage found. Epbr123 (talk) 11:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia 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) 19:32, 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)

 Please add new comments below this notice. NOTE: This AFD was relisted in part because concerns had been raised about the number of Playmates listed simultaneously. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  00:49, 9 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) 14:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball   Watcher  02:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban . Monty  845  03:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep per Carrite and Monty. As a second choice, redirect per Hullaballoo. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, topic-banned nominator. Chester Markel (talk) 05:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Hullaballoo. The procedural keep idea has some merit as a form of troutslap to the nom, but even so, nominating an article for deletion is only a violation of his topic ban on editing BLPs in a pretty technical sense.  Since the article is here, and the nomination was not flagrant, it may as well be dealt with.  Glenfarclas  ( talk ) 05:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1989. That magazine's publisher does not have the authority to make their models notable by Wikipedia standards just by giving them some made-up title or featuring them in a nude photo with a staple through their middle. Fails to satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Monty and Carrite, falls into category of those recently closed Keep by spartaz, without prejudice to renom.--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. This AFD differs from those closed by Spartaz; here there is significant discussion on the substance and no challenge to the claim that an independent article is not justified. We're not going to get a consistent set of outcomes here; other admins closed similar dissussions differently; let's just deal with the substantive issue. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:40, 18 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.