Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Richmond


 * 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Laura Richmond

 * – ( 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 03:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1988. 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. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability 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. Dekkappai (talk) 19:11, 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 to List of Playboy Playmates of 1988. No significant coverage found. Epbr123 (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: no significant coverage, and no indication that she's known for anything other than Playboy. (And if this !vote seems very generic, its because so is the article.) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:36, 3 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) 13:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Carrite, no indication that WP:BEFORE has been followed, and many of these AfDs are not succeeding.--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a reason to to have a biography on Laura Richmond.
 * The preceding unsigned comment was posted by the deletion nominator.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball   Watcher  01:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Comment: I would point out that both Carrite's lengthy spiel & Milowent's endorsement of it fail WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY -- the issue is not whether the nominator dotted all "i"s and crossed all "t"s (a point that in any case they cover only speculatively), but whether the article establishes WP:Notability -- a topic that they fail to address. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So its a minor technicality when an editor is banned from editing BLPs in any way, and nominates a 100+ BLPs for deletion? The noms were abusive and disruptive, and there's no basis for knowing the nom was ever good in the first place, but i know many of them were not based on their closes.--Milowent • talkblp-r  13:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Procedural Keep This nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban . Monty  845  02:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - After some searching I can find nothing substantive written about her anywhere reliable. Far too little material to support a verifyable article which, having read, gives no hint that I've missed anything - Peripitus (Talk) 12:34, 16 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.