Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharry Konopski


 * 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) 01:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Sharry Konopski

 * – ( 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 guideline. Damiens .rf 02:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep News coverage 10 years after being centerfold, seems clearly notable. Article needs improvement with additional references, not deletion. Monty  845  03:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article needs significant improvement, but I believe the subject received enough coverage over her injuries and attempts to continue to model despite paralysis to justify an independent article. Weirdly, she's also in the news this week as a peacock rancher (or whatever).  Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:09, 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) 20:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - easily passes GNG and WP:BASIC with her news coverage. Coverage about her playmatehood is not disqualified from the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Coverage about her playmatehood is not automatically disqualified, but is usually trivial, as explained in WP:BASIC. Have you seen some non-trivial coverage about her that you would share with us?
 * Of course, like in others AfDs about non-notable playmates, you may chose not to provide evidence for what you state and simply expect a gullible closing admin to take your word for that. --Damiens .rf 20:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I expect the other people to look at that google news search and easily determine that plus the bizarre peacock articles are extensive coverage. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Morbidthoughts.--Milowent • talkblp-r 00:49, 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) 13:55, 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.