Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Playboy NSS models


 * 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. Courcelles 23:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Playboy NSS models

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I am also nominating the following related pages because these pages are the components of the overall list involved:

WP:NOTDIR violation. This is simply a (partial but detailed) index of the contents of various lesser Playboy publications. It provides much more detail (specific pages on which photos appear, etc) regarding these generally nonnotable models than we provide about either genuinely notable Playboy models or about the contents of the notable magazine itself. Similar page-by-page listings were removed, by consensus, from the Playmate articles quite some time ago. There's really no independent sourcing for the articles, and many of the names appear likely pseudonyms. The encyclopedic value is therefore negligible. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. NSS models certainly don't achieve the level of celebrity of Playmates, and I can see no point to listing them all in the absence of notability for the group or for a substantial number of them individually.  If there are any featured models who merit their own articles (for whatever reason), I suspect the list is short and they can be listed in Playboy Special Edition, which is about this branch of Playboy publishing as a whole.  postdlf (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete We as Wikipedia editors must send a message to the good faith users who come here looking for this kind of information. That message is: FLIP OFF! We welcome you with open arms if you come here looking for articles on some things, but not this. Why? Because we like some things, but not others. If you boo-hoo that Wikipedia is "not censored", we are forced by policy to agree. But we do have Notability and other guidelines which allow us to remove things we don't like. You got a problem with that? FLIP OFF! Have a nice day. Dekkappai (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't you mean to use the more current form of that euphemism, FORGET OFF!? 18:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The above is either a hoax message or the individual Dekkappai might want to have a look at WP:Civility. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I consider myself fortunate that I have never heard of FORGET OFF! "Flip off" is Dekkappedian dialect, as in "Flip off, you old fizzer!" ... or the more vulgar variant: "Fizz off, you old flipper!" (Careful where you use that one. Them's fighting words.) Dekkappai (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are indeed fortunate on this point. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVILITY prevents me from saying anything stronger than: PERSONAL ATTACK! and a COPYVIO one at that... Dekkappai (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The video is quite disturbing, and I regret that it caused you so much distress that you missed the otherwise obvious fact that it was uploaded to the official, copyright-compliant youtube channel of the rightsholders. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Article that satisfy the rules.--Johnsmith877 (talk) 07:00, 29 June 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.