Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terri Welles


 * 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)

Terri Welles

 * – ( 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 01:59, 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) 19:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. As long as her court case against Playboy is treated as notable, it's enough, together with her less substantial nonPlayboy credits, to justify an independent article. But not by very much. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - being a party to a notable lawsuit (assuming that the suit is indeed notable) does not automatically confer notability. Acting resume and available sources do not support notability. Harley Hudson (talk) 19:41, 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)


 * Keep Enough coverage for a stand alone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Such as...? Harley Hudson (talk) 21:23, 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 21:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It would help if you actually clicked on the google links above. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't suggest didn't. --Damiens .rf  01:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Google news search show multiple news stories in 1981 and 1998 about Welle's playmate status and subsequent lawsuit satisfies WP:BASIC. Unlike nominator's suggestion, there is no playmatehood exception to WP:BASIC or GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is someone who made legal history when she won her case to describe herself as playmate of the year.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In such cases, we write an article covering the case, not a bio. --Damiens .rf 01:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is someone who was not only Playmate of the Year, but also made legal history. The whole person is therefore of interest, not merely one thing or another thing.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I take offense to the nom's logic. Just because most models or "playmates" are not notable, does not mean that she is not notable.  It's sort of like, "If it's bad for you, it must taste good."  Being a named party in a major lawsuit can add to notability. Keep. Bearian (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, WP has many articles about named parties in lawsuits, and those that generate ongoing media coverage or appeals to the Supreme Court are usually kept, contrary to what is suggested above by Hudson. WP:LAW has loads of such articles. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 3 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.