Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie Owens


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Baseball   Watcher  01:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Susie Owens

 * – ( 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 03:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article as it stands is inadequate, and her modeling alone, almost entirely Playboy-related, surely wouldn't support an independent article. But she was a prominent enough figure in the comics industry about twenty years ago, merchandising herself through comics written/drawn by very notable industry figures, selling trading cards , and working as a recognizable model for various notable illustrators . I think there's enough out there to justify an independent article, admitting that the sourcing needs improvement (and probably print searching). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't that plain simple self promotion? Is there coverage / critical analysis about these merchandising she created about herself? --Damiens .rf  20:47, 5 May 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) 21:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - No playmatehood exception to WP:BASIC or GNG. Consistent coverage by Dallas Morning News (revealed by Google News search) over many years adds up to satisfy as significant. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:01, 30 April 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) 13:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per HW.--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:24, 5 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.