Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Playboy Playmates of 1995


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

List of Playboy Playmates of 1995

 * – ( View AfD View log  of Playboy Playmates of 1995 Stats )

This page has no sources and nothing noteworthy. Should be removed. Richterer11111 (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The information for multiple of the people listed there is inaccurate. I am the father of one of the people who is named there and said person was not featured in the magazine. How would you suggest addressing said issue if the information is inaccurate. The sources do not appear to be something which wikipedia sanctions and i do not have information which can say it is untrue, any more than i do not have information which says i am not a state senator. The information is simply inaccurate. 14:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amiryucky (talk • contribs)  — Amiryucky (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * There is a list of sources for this article. Considering the very first edit Richterer11111 ever made was creating this AfD this feels WP:POINTy and not made in good faith. Justeditingtoday (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Contrary to your assertion, there are sources in the article (see the References section). I don't know what you mean by "nothing noteworthy", but I'm quite certain that it isn't a reason based on the deletion policy. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's sourced and these lists are common - see .  JohnInDC (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - though I suppose I have to acknowledge that the particular sources offered may not qualify as RS. This seems, ultimately, fixable though and not grounds for deletion.  JohnInDC (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The article does have some sources, and several of the people in the list have articles. "Nothing noteworthy" straddles WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE and WP:IDONTLIKEIT - neither a reason to delete. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. No reason advanced to disturb the compromise rather oainfully hammered out not so long ago. I do think it would be better to remove the clutterboxes, whose contents are either redundant to the text or poorly sourced, transient, and ultimately trivial. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - NB, the prior commenter is a new account, and has only blanked some of these pages and commented here. Anyone who remembers the template message for this situation is welcome to replace my comment with it.  JohnInDC (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- largely unsourced fancruft. Prior consensus does not mean that this could not or should not be revisited. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- unsourced materials. This should be removed if sources arent better. 81.105.221.249 (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - NOTE: I have recently heavily-edited the article under consideration here. I was able to find a number of decent references by doing just the most basic of searches on the subject of this Wikipedia article. The idea that a list article that contains at least six (half of the people mentioned in the whole list) notable persons (Melissa Deanne Holliday, Lisa Marie Scott, Stacy Sanches, Heidi Mark, Donna D'Errico & Alicia Rickter) isn't notable on its own is kind of a laughable argument on the face of it.
 * The article here has also apparently been recently vandalized by a number of apparent Single Purpose Accounts/IP editors which may have been operating as sock/meatpuppets. Expressing an opinion that basically boils down to I just don't like it isn't a valid argument at AfD. Guy1890 (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps six are noteable - and so then why include the other six on this page without sources? At the very least there needs to be major editing to comply with Wikipedia rules. Richterer11111 (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Every one of the sections of this list article now has at least some citations, and I'm very confident (based on my own basic research so far) that the rest of the info (and likely even more info) in this list article can be reliably sourced in the future. AfD is not cleanup - please stop vandalizing the article. I'd personally also like to know what other Wikipedia accounts you are currently using - people don't just show up on Wikipedia and start AfDs on their first few edits. Guy1890 (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid reason for deletion, Plenty of sources, Passes GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 03:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No opinion. I would say WP:IDONTLIKEIT, so delete, but that's an invalid point. I'm just coming here because I apparently got myself accidentally involved in the edit war. I reverted once on Huggle than undid my own edit. I plan to stay far clear of this article and the discussion going forward. J♯m (talk &#124; contribs) 02:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I find it odd that this one particular year was singled out for such attention when we have Category:Playboy lists. --Neil N  talk to me 04:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 09:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep – Meets §1 and §3 of WP:LISTPURP. North America1000 11:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - a similar AfD, resulting in Keep, can be found here: Articles for deletion/List of Playboy Playmates of 2014.  JohnInDC (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete This amounts to an invasion of privacy for non-notable people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - I can shed some light on why this specific year is singled out by new users and IP editors. One of the playmates (Miss June) hired a PR firm to do some cleaning up. Since this page ranks first page in Google for her name, they really want it gone. I know because I own a site that is also ranking high for her name and I was contacted too. Fluxlux (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2017 (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.