Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penny Baker


 * 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) 02:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Penny Baker

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Being a Playboy playmate does not make 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 02:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Barely enough non-Playmate notability to justify an independent article. Just barely enough. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Which non-playmate notability do you see? I believe the line on the article about her interview with Martin Amis says it all. --Damiens .rf 04:46, 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) 20:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Plenty of coverage to pass GNG. Nominator is confusing trivial as in depth of coverage with importance of the subject. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Keep as per ever-reliable Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A link to a google news search, while easy to copy and paste, does not establishes notability. Trivial coverage is excluded from GNG. Trivial tv roles plus a trivial modeling work (i.e.: being a playmate) does not sums up to a notable biography. Do you have specific examples of coverage about her? Multiple examples. I know it's harder to defy your argument when you just state their existence instead of showing them. But I expect the closing admin to avoid such purely assertive votes. This is not a democratic decision. --Damiens .rf 15:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Other people are free to look through those news hits and determine for themselves whether they think that's enough coverage. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're purposefully and repeatedly denying to provide the evidence you claim is easy to find. --Damiens .rf 20:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:WABBITSEASON - It's clear you have a flawed view of the GNG and BASIC along with the burden of proof to demonstrate notability. Just because I make you go through an extra step in order to view the totality of the coverage doesn't mean you can't go and look at them individually. It's clear that you think the subject itself is all fluff anyway, but other people are free to judge for themselves. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm only asking you to backup your assertions. Plenty of gnews hits is not the same as plenty of coverage. At least the kind of coverage that is relevant to our policies on notability. It would be easier for you to provide concrete links to some of this coverage than to argue and try to guess what I think and what I don't think here. And of course, it's easier to expect others will also be lazy and take Google News hits as a sign of relevant coverage. --Damiens .rf 20:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't that the beauty? I'm not trying to convince you. I just have to convince others. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You like to take it as a vote, instead of as a discussion. --Damiens .rf 20:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Naw, it's still a discussion. You're just at the wrong end of it currently. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: HW is not lax with his keeps, so I would not disagree with him here.--Milowent • talkblp-r  00:51, 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) 14:08, 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.