Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mason Marconi


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Mason Marconi

 * – (View AfD (View log  •  AfD statistics)

No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC) That doesn't make any sense; she was a Penthouse Pet, was in tons and tons of magazines, was in music videos (Snoop Dogg), and was actually famous. What does no significant coverage mean? And doesn't pass porn bio because she was in Penthouse and not Playboy? Does Playboy own stock in wikipedia now? • Librarian2001 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.21.174 (talk) 08:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RadManCF (talk • contribs) 01:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * Comment in reply to 99.141.21.174: Significant coverage is when there are "sources [that] address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." I've also felt there's something problematic about the way WP:PORNBIO seems to give Wikipedia's imprimatur to Playboy and/or journalists' ideas of notability as what encyclopedic notability should be.  WP:NOTNEWS states "not all newsworthy events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own" and conversely not all subjects of encyclopedia articles are deemed newsworthy.  But PORNBIO is what it is.  The argument for including Playboy and excluding Penthouse from PORNBIO seems to be that the media appear to cover Playboy more; see /.  "Significant coverage" and PORNBIO are both notability guidelines about which it is said "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page."  Saying they're just guidelines isn't especially productive, though.  Thus, if you disagree with the guideline, the main options would seem to be: (1) change it through establishing consensus for changing it on the talk page or (2) offer an argument here for not following it for some reason.  Coverage of her being a Pet, her resume of appearance in magazines, documentation/coverage of music video appearances would be places to start that argument, if you're willing to do it.  Her own presentation of information about herself is a place to start, e.g., but for most (not all) purposes the guideline is not to use self-published sources.  If some of her print and television appearances are coverage of her rather than simply appearances, that might constitute significant coverage.
 * Conversely, the stronger AfD arguments are when nominators do not just point at a guideline but include their reasoning as to why the guideline is not met. "No significant coverage" is actually an unsubstantiated claim and there are indications that there might be significant coverage.  It is true however that the article does not substantiate that there is, thus "No reliable sources cited in the article verifying either significant coverage or WP:PORNBIO criteria" would be a marginally better way of just pointing, since that qualified statement at least appears to be true about the article.  AfD nominations are also stronger when they document how they followed WP:BEFORE, and subsequent recommendations by additional Wikipedians are stronger when they "Do not base [their] recommendation solely on the information supplied by the nominator," offering a more substantive reason than "Delete per nom" (I must admit I have done just written that on occasion, though) or don't also only point at a guideline like not notable.  In closing an AfD an admin is supposed to be "looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. [...] Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid original research and synthesis, respect copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus" Deletion guidelines for administrators.  Theoretically a closing admin could close as keep or no consensus default to keep if the arguments made are not strong, as has been the case here so far.  However, in practice it's my impression that doesn't happen often, and when it does the admin's closing reason would probably have to make an argument as well, and regardless of whether it did or not, it might then end up going to WP:Deletion review.  Welcome? Шизомби (talk) 10:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication that the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline, o indication the article is capable of meaningful expansion beyond the existing stub. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2009 (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.