Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Evenson


 * 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 per WP:BIO and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. PeterSymonds (talk)  21:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Kimberly Evenson
Porn star Nude model (correction) that fails to meet criteria. Sorry. Wikipedia is not a telephone directory. JerryVanF (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See here for a discussion regarding this AfD and its previous speedy non-admin closures.  Equazcion •✗/C • 03:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete JerryVanF (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Added comment: How about Hustler or Penthouse's monthly model? Or Jet magazines bikini girl?  Being a model in a magazine does not establish notability.  Sorry. JerryVanF (talk) 04:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, Penthouse is covered by PORNBIO. Hustler isn't as it doesn't have the respect and visibility among the general public as Playboy and to a lesser extent Penthouse. As for the Jet bikini magazine, how does that fall under PORNBIO? Tabercil (talk) 07:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy close no rationale given; notability seems to be there. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The fact that there are navboxes listing every Playmate of the Month (eg. Template:Playmates of 2003) seems to say that that position has been deemed notable by the wikipedia community. -Icewedge (talk) 06:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is established, recommended speed close. Harland1 (t/c) 06:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. The nomination should be withdrawn.--Berig (talk) 06:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - Needs to be withdrawn, asserts notability.  a s e nine  say what?  08:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Let's be realistic. Playmate of the Month is notable. DGG (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Playmate of the Month is notable. Dismas |(talk) 03:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Undecided. Seems like should be notable, but after re-reading WP:BIO a couple of times I don't see exactly why the subject is notable in this particular case. Presumably the Playboy issue in question contained some sort of biographical data but does that really qualify as in-depth coverage? Were there interviews with her in other magazines/media? If yes, which ones and when? Are there any other reliable sources that covered her? Again, presumably the answer should be yes, but one still would like to see some of them. If there aren't other sources, why isn't this a BLP1E case? Nsk92 (talk) 03:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, exactly, this person is covered more than enough by just listing her at the Playmate article --Enric Naval (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Looking at PEOPLE, it lists receiving an award from Playboy as a reason to assert notability. however being Playmate of the Month is not an award by any standard. All these persons are already listed at Playmate, and many of these person's articles should be deleted, like Lesa_Ann_Pedriana who has even less assertion of notability than this person. Saying that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an argument to keep an article. This article fails notability on its own and ought to be deleted. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't think she was ever a pornographic actress, so this section of WP:BIO would not apply anyway. Nsk92 (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The language is less than clear, but the intent of the reference to Playboy and Penthouse was to specifically cover the designation of Playmate and Pet, respectively. After all, I can't think of any other "award" which would come from these two magazines which would be specific for PORNBIO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabercil (talk • contribs)
 * Playboy gives other sort of awards and calls them awards (I made a short list on one of my comments). The language says "awards", and Playboy doesn't call Playmate of the Month/Year an award, and doesn't call Playmate chosen models "award winners" --Enric Naval (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I wasn't sure before, but now it seems clear to me that there's no reason for this person to have an article. She's just a model who posed for Playboy. So Playboy designated her a "Playmate of the Month" -- she's still just a model with no objective third-party mention (at least none shown yet).  Equazcion •✗/C • 03:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Award of "playmate of the month" asserts strong notability to me, considering the publication which gives it is one with extremely high readership and penetration.  Beyond that, no rationale provided for deletion.  Celarnor Talk to me  03:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Heh. 'Penetration'. (Yeah, yeah. I'm sorry.) Half  Shadow  04:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Damn perverts. :P Celarnor Talk to me  04:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Dammit, I missed that one.  Equazcion •✗/C • 04:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable person.  &#10154; Hi DrNick ! 03:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Dismas |(talk) 04:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Playboy's designation of a given model as Playmate confers a fair degree of visibility and notoriety in and by itself. Tabercil (talk) 07:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable in and of itself, any more than e.g. some food magazine's "Dessert of the Month" which we don't consider notable enough for an article either. John Darrow (talk) 08:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 09:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment She actually passes WP:BIO under a couple criteria:
 * 1) There is the first bullet point under WP:PORNBIO which states Has won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award. If PotM isn't a notable award, why do we have an article for it?
 * 2) If you say that a PotM isn't a good enough award but PotY is, then she is still notable since she is "a serious nominee" as is every PotM.
 * 3) Both of those points are further reinforced by the "Any biography" section of WP:BIO, specifically The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. Again, both PotM and PotY are notable awards and this woman as well as every other PotM has won PotM and therefore nominated for PotY.  Dismas |(talk) 09:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Playmate of the Month's designation as an "award" is very questionable.  Equazcion •✗/C • 11:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As I state below, not even Playmate of the Year is an actual award, even if some call it like that --Enric Naval (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The difference between "of the month" and "of the year" in Playboy's case is that the Playmate of the Year is chosen from a pool of possible contenders (the various playmates of the month in that year). Playmate of the Month is just Playboy's name for the model they're featuring in a given month. The Playmate of the Month hasn't actually "won" any contest or beaten out other competitors. They're two completely different designations that mean two very different things.  Equazcion •✗/C • 11:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, there's no trophy or anything but to say that they don't "win" anything is not entirely accurate. Lots of women send in their photos in the hopes of becoming a PotM.  To say that they haven't beaten out other competitors is incorrect.  Dismas |(talk) 12:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no public list of contenders, though. As someone else pointed out, saying Playmate of the Month is notable in itself is like saying Recipe of the Month is notable. People sending things in to a magazine in the hopes that they'll be chosen as that month's feature isn't winning an award. It's just getting featured. Again, Playboy might assign terminology to this that makes it sound like an award that people win, but it's really not.  Equazcion •✗/C • 12:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete zero independent reliable sources cited. WP:BIO and derivatives are inclusion guidelines that indicate the type of person who will usually have sufficient independent coverage to allow a policy-compliant article. An indication that the person is likely to have such coverage, is not in and of itself evidence of such coverage.  We cannot have a policy-compliant biography of a living individual without non-trivial independent sources even if they have appeared on the front cover of Melons Monthly or whatever. Guy (Help!) 11:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Needs to meet notability guidelines per WP:BIO and needs independent, reliable, and verifiable sourcing per WP:BLP. his article does not have it. --NonvocalScream (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Playboy does give out actual awards:
 * "Playboy is awarding the basketball star its annual Anson Mount Scholar/Athlete Award, which presents $5,000 to the general scholarship fund of a student-athlete who excels in the classroom and on the court."
 * "National News Briefs; High School Refuses $5,000 Playboy Award" (frigging NYT source, this is what a real source looks like)
 * "The Cadillac Escalade had just won the Playboy 2007 Car of the Year Award (...) a golden trophy with a totally blinged-out Playboy bunny glued to it and a discreet plaque proclaiming Escalade's win", official award list on Playboy website
 * "Playboy awards BioShock its game of the year accolade"
 * most articles on Playmate of the Month "winners" should be nominated individually to evaluate notability of each one of them per separate. Some of them could be salvaged, and other surely belong to people who are actually notable by wikipedia standards --Enric Naval (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * curious. some of these are exactly the sort of non-notable award that doesnt count. On the other hand, PoM is what the publication made its reputation with. DGG (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm don't see how that's relevant. Just because a company made their reputation by doing this means it establishes notability? If YouTube established its reputation by featuring fat guys sitting in their chairs at home taping themselves lip-syncing and dancing (not that they necessarily did, but as an example), would that establish notability for a person too? I think our standards are a little more stringent than that. Playmate of the Month similarly isn't objective mention, regardless of how much that feature helped Playboy gain notoriety. .  Equazcion  •✗/C • 02:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That assumes the decision is delete. I know this isn't a democracy, but the tally right now runs roughly 11-7 in favour of keeping. My guess right now is (barring any great changes) that the closing decision will be no consensus, which pretty much defaults to a decision to keep. Tabercil (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Please notice that altought some pages say "Playboy Playmate of the Year Award", Playboy itself doesn't mention it anywhere as an actual award, and it only says that it gives prizes to the girls chosen as Playmate of the Year, so it wouldn't pass WP:PORNBIO because it's *not* an award (please provide sources from Playbot itself saying that it's an award). Notice the Playboy's page about choosing Playmates, being a Playmate is just a model job. They should all be listed on the Playmate page unless they are notable of their own. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Arguing whether PotM is or is not an "award" is splitting semantic hairs. Regardless of that, it's a high-profile acheivement in entertainment that makes the playmate presumptively notable. (That said, I'm startled that no one's voted "keep per WP:HOTTIE.") —Quasirandom (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oooo... wish I had known about that when I first made my decision to keep.  Tabercil (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep A Playmate of the Month is notable. Notability is asserted but does need to be referenced. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:HOTTIE. I'll bite. That said, the core of Playboy's notability is the PotM, the interviews we all 'really read it for', and the joie di vivre men vicariously experience by looking through it. The most quanitfiable and identifiable of those is the playmate, and to suggest that it's thoroughly non-notable is prudish, among other problems. Finally, I note that in this case, the person also had some acting jobs, expanding the possible baseline for her notability, and pushing for at the least, case-by-case evaluation of PotMs.ThuranX (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, notability is asserted per the Playboy mention and others. Sources, obviously, should be added if found (the article currently being unsourced does not mean it can't be sourced). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Why just this one, out of the hundreds of Playmate articles? Nominator's article as a " porn star adult model" is superficial and is reminiscent of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. IRK! Leave me a note or two 17:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"> Equazcion •✗/C • 17:25, 15 May 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.