Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monique St. Pierre


 * 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   redirect, without deletion, to List of Playboy Playmates of 1978. Consensus is closest to redirection; redirecting without deletion can facilitate merging or the re-establishment of a separate article upon presentation and citation of further sourcing to establish notability. &mdash; Scientizzle 14:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Monique St. Pierre

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Being a Playboy playmate does not makes you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. 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 criteria. Damiens .rf 00:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1978. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Playmate of the Year award satisfies PORNBIO, whether it is a strategic commercial decision or not. Google news hits reveals various reliable sources that cover the subject to satisfy WP:BASIC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Playmate of the Year is not an award. Non-trivial coverage on reliable sources may guarantee inclusions. Did you find some? --Damiens .rf 14:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There's prior consensus in a recent AfD that PMOYs are notable. From this Gnews search, the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, and recreation cover shot hits satisfies BASIC for me. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That was a very problematic AFD and I plan a deletion review on it. I'm just expecting the admin to reply my query. The votes we're basically WP:ILIKEIT and attacks on my person. The first keep voter even assumed that the girl was not notable other than the fact of being playmate of the year, which pretty much establishes that this title is not an evidence of notability. --Damiens .rf 15:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You still had 6 editors in that AfD who considered that PMOY was a notable recognition/award/status. You can characterise it as ILIKEIT or not an award but evidence is staggeringly against you that it's not a well known award. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The editors in that AfD were more interested in mocking me than in providing any support for the claim that playmate of the year should be considered an award, despite being a strategic decision by Plaboy Corp. about its products. As HullaBalloo perfectly put it there ""Playmate of the Year" is chosen on the same basis that my local supermarket picks the cereal that's on the front page of its weekly circular.". --Damiens .rf 20:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect as suggested above. I have no interest right now in the debate over whether or not making Playmate of the Year defines a subject as notable, despite limited third party coverage.  If such is deemed to be the case at a later date it can simply be unmerged.  I have not the time to copy/paste this to every single playmate nominated on this day, but any closing administrator may feel free to incorporate my thoughts and apply them to any other article of this type.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  22:36, 2 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) 14:29, 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.