Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serria Tawan


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Serria Tawan

 * – ( 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 01:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe there has been general consensus that Playmates of the Month are notable and that if you add on some modest acting credits, it is a no brainer. She has modest acting credits and a decent rewrite of her bio would make her notability more clear. Check out the IMDb link. 3 eps of Everybody Hates Chris and one of CSI: Miami. Nothing to sweep under the rug.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:39, 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) 19:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2002. 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. Her acting credits do not appear to include any substantial roles sufficient to infer independent notability, although this is a closer case. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Enough coverage for a stand alone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Where can we find such coverage? Is it substantial or just trivial, as expected for most playmates? Please, elaborate to support your view, otherwise it's just a vote. --Damiens .rf 21:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't you just vote when you mass nominated all these articles for deletion without following WP:BEFORE? Click the Google archives news search at the top of the AFD.  Sort through the results by entering in "Playboy".  Notice the book she published gets reviews in various places, and she is interviewed about it?   D r e a m Focus  09:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep based on her film and television career . Plus coverage of her book.  Also note the two saying delete both stamped the same thing on a dozens of different articles, one after the other, without even looking at them.   D r e a m Focus  09:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Dream Focus. -- &oelig; &trade; 09:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Same as Dream Focus & OlEnglish noted above. Validays (talk) 10:29,30 April 2011(UTC)
 * Keep - For her playmatehood, book, and acting credits satisfying WP:PORNBIO criteria 4. No playmatehood exception in GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per her fairly substantial acting career. Epbr123 (talk) 08:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: no significant coverage, and no indication that she's known for anything other than Playboy. (And if this !vote seems very generic, its because so is the article.) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article appears to have fallen victim to a series of mass nominations which were not vetted before listing.  :(   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  23:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you be capable of supporting your vote with a policy-relevant comment instead of a guessed opinion about my behaviour? --Damiens .rf 23:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If I felt it necessary, perhaps.  coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  00:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, it's up to you. Come back if you change your mind. --Damiens .rf 03:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Coccyx. Trolling and timewasting nom. --212.137.70.194 (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:GNG which states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." The only independent and reliable source (that lacks significant coverage) is the review (here) of the book she co-authored with two other playmates in 2007. This source doesn't actually look like a review -or even an interview in that manner- since it seems to be written to illustrate a point. The book itself is not notable and no other review of it can be found. I cant find any other sources. Nimuaq (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Even a negative review is still a review. And they thought her notable enough to call her and publish a quote from her.  That's coverage enough. "People underestimate the power of stuffing a bra," one of the book's authors, Serria Tawan (aka Miss November 2002), said in a phone interview. "Stuffing bras is the norm out here" — Los Angeles — and all you need is some tissue. "I love making boobs look good and I don't see any point in not making them stand out."   D r e a m Focus  16:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that coverage, alone, is not enough and can not be considered as significant coverage. I think the article needs multiple independent and reliable sources on the subject per WP:GNG which states "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic" (footnote #3). I will be more than happy to change my vote if there is a single reliable and independent source out there that covers the subject directly in detail. Nimuaq (talk) 16:50, 6 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.