Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liv Lindeland


 * 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) 02:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Liv Lindeland

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being the first Playboy playmate with pubic hair is not an achievement. 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 03:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Has appeared in films, and there are a lot of references in google books. This person appears to actually be (or have been) notable. Article needs improvement with additional references, not deletion. Monty  845  03:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The books I see are list where she's one of the entries. Casts lists, adult model lists, and some books entirely about playboy. Will we find some non-trivial mention? --Damiens .rf 04:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * seems to be going in to some depth on here, which was the one I focused on, but the excerpt is too short to really tell how far it goes in covering her. But a number of the references appear to be more then mere lists, some aren't even principally about playboy. Monty  845  04:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. I think that her film credits, though probably not sufficient to meet WP:ENT standing alone, plus the (un)coverage she received for "mainstreaming" what had previously been thought of as hard-core pornographic, justify an independent article. The sourcing for the latter has been so far grossly inadequate, falling well below BLP standards, but I believe it can be turned up (as indicated by the book source cited by Monty845). And interim redirect to the Playmate lisr would be OK, but not preferred. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:22, 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)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Google News search reveals that she spent 3 years on Laugh-In in addition to her other acting credits. This satisfies criteria 4 of WP:PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - sufficiently notable to overcome spam nomination.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep- It has some relevance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weams (talk • contribs) 13:19, 4 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) 13:51, 4 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.