Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Glasson


 * 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) 04:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Stephanie Glasson

 * – ( 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 02:26, 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) 19:27, 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 2004. 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) 17:41, 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)


 * Redirect Not enough coverage for a stand alone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:30, 29 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)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - At least 2 reliable sources has done a feature on her satisfying WP:BASIC. |+928-6479&pub=Daily+Press&desc=EVEN+MOM+IS+PROUD+OF+HER+CENTERFOLD&pqatl=google Morbidthoughts (talk). No playmatehood exception for WP:BASIC exist. 21:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - More sources are added. Nimuaq (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep -per morbidthoughts, meets GNG barely.--Milowent • talkblp-r 13:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban . Monty  845  02:53, 14 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.