Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Playboy Playmates of 1961


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Baseball   Watcher  03:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

List of Playboy Playmates of 1961

 * – ( View AfD View log )

PROD contested with "fits WP:LISTPEOPLE criteria for list of persons "famous for a specific event") However, WP:LISTPEOPLE states: "A person may be included in a list of people if all the following requirements are met... #1 The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement" Yet consensus has determined, both in an earlier discussion, and through current deletion/redirecting that the unifying theme of the list does not confer notability. Every subject on this list has had an article deleted/redirected without controversy, indicating consensus of Non-notability. Also, the unifying subject of this list-- Being a Playboy Playmate-- was determined by earlier discussion to be non-notable. Being a Playboy Playmate is the only claim to notability for the majority of the subjects on this list. Further, Manual of Style (stand-alone lists) states "Stand-alone lists... are articles that primarily consist of a list or a group of lists, linking to articles or lists" None of the subjects in this list have stand-alone articles, indicating this List is invalid. While Playboy, and the Playboy Playmate feature may be notable, Wikipedia is not a directory "A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." Full disclosure: I started this article believing it was a valid listing of articles. It is no longer that, and no longer belongs on Wikipedia. Dekkappai (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. There may be a technical problem with this nomination, because it is not showing up at Articles for deletion/Log/2011 April 26 (or at WP:AFD/T).--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominator quotes the first sentence of WP:LISTPEOPLE but omits the next sentence: "An exception to this requirement may be made if the person is especially important in the list's group; for example, if the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement  need not be met."  And WP:LSC notes that one common type of list is that where "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria.  These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of paracetamol brand names."  This list properly (and completely) covers a group who share one common notable event. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Arxiloxos (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  —Arxiloxos (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, Arxiloxos, it has been consensus that lists of non-notable subjects are not allowed. Many such have been deleted. You say, "This list properly (and completely) covers a group who share one common notable event." But being a Playboy Playmate is not a notable event according to consensus. Since not one subject on this list has a stand-alone article-- indeed they did have them, but they were noncontroversially removed-- this is a list of entirely non-notable people. Obviously, the other yearly lists will also need to be removed, so this one may be a bit premature. But we can have a bundle-discussion after we know the exact percentage of notable-to-non-notable subjects in these lists. Notable subjects-- Marilyn Monroe, etc.-- will have their own articles, and no information will be lost by the removal of these non-notable lists. Your Other stuff exists examples do not apply to this case either, since a good percentage of the items at List of Dilbert characters actually do have articles. That "Minor characters" is a subset of this list does not apply to a stand-alone list such as this one. Also, significantly, we are dealing with twelve Biographies of living persons in this list with sourcing inadequate to these requirements. We don't have reliable, significant secondary sourcing for any of these BLPS. The sourcing is not independent (Playboy.com), or part of a database (wekinglypigs.com). This is not acceptable for one BLP-- especially concerning a controversial subject matter-- much less twelve. Dekkappai (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, please note: Notability (Lists of people) states "Inclusion within stand-alone lists should be determined by the notability criteria above." The criteria above being Notability (people), which every one of the members of this list have failed. The list is invalid. Dekkappai (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. No valid basis given for deletion. As Arxiloxos quite correctly points out, the nominator has misleadingly quoted a single line from the MOS (not that noncompliance with the MOS is generally a reason for deletion) and ignored more applicable standards, such as "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group." The nominator "created" the article in an attempt to create a new home for content deleted by consensus despite his opposition; he did so by cutting-and-pasting without proper attribution, etc. Now that the article has been repaired, by me and others, to solve the problems he created, he's trying to dramah-tize the situation for no constructive reason. The nominator also misstates the consequences of article redirects; the redirection of an article about a member of a group to the group article, when whatever notability the member enjoys stems mainly or entirely from membership in the group, is not necessarily a determination of notability, but an editorial judgment; see, for example, WP:MUSICBIO. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * AGF Dekkappai (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hullaballoo and Arxiloxos. The nomination seems like a WP:POINT violation. Epbr123 (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Arxiloxos, Hullaballoo and Epbr123. It looks like WP:POINTy and borderline disruptive nomination. --Reference Desker (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Arxiloxos. Lists seem a reasonable compromise than having a bunch of stubs.  Gamaliel (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, bunches of stubs are acceptable, as are lists of such. But the important thing is that they must have a valid claim to notability. Neither the stubs redirected to this list, nor the subject of the list itself have any claim to notability whatsoever. It is especially alarming in that these are BlPs in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Lists are OK. Individuals biographies on every one, not so...♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Arxiloxos, Hullaballoo and Epbr123.Cavarrone (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above. I don't think there's bad faith here, but there is fairly heated debate on articles in this area, and that makes this precisely the wrong time to bring a nomination like this one. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 01:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep this is fine and within policy while in list form.  coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  21:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. holy baloney.  doesn't anyone write articles anymore?  shall we just delete them instead?--Milowent • talkblp-r  03:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Good question, Milowent. Actually, just since August 23 of last year, I've started 1700 articles on Japanese films & film personnel. None of them here, though, of course, since it would have wasted a lot of time showing them to pass GNG. Dekkappai (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So this is a revenge nom?--Milowent • talkblp-r 00:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep but clean it up, please. It looks ridiculous with twelve sections, each with an infobox and a short paragraph all of which say Playmate Name (born month day, year) is a nationality model. She is best known for being Playboy magazine's Playmate of the Month for its Month 1961 issue. Her centerfold was photographed by Photographer Name.  That is just data written as prose text, and can be merged with the infobox data into a single table, instead of the awkward layout now used. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a mess. Some competent editor who cares about the subject should clean it up, that's for sure. Dekkappai (talk) 20:55, 3 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.