Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry Nihen


 * 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   delete. Shimeru (talk) 06:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Terry Nihen

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article ihas existed for five years and is an uncited stub Fails WP:BIO  and WP:GNG,nothing in the text that shows any Notability (people) Off2riorob (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I haven't found significant coverage of her in reliable, third-party sources to meet WP:N.  Them From  Space  01:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: I realize this is part of a good faith mass nomination by Off2riorob, so I am posting basically the same comment on all of them.  I understand that WP:PORNBIO was changed recently via Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2010 but I don't think that outcome necessarily reflected true consensus.  The bright line rule of "every playmate gets an article" was much easier to administer and reduced editor overhead time, instead of us spending lots of time deciding that some (most?) playmates get articles and a few get shuffled off into some "playmates of 200x" article.  I guess we'll see, if these articles get deleted, whether they get successively recreated. (see also AfDs of 2010 playmates now pending, among others most by same nominator, I think).  I went back to see what the actual track record is here, and I don't see an AfD for a playmate that resulted in a delete since the summer of 2004 (and there's only one!)  I guess WP:PORNBIO eventually was edited to say that playmates are considered notable to reflect what the AfDs were showing and thus avoid pointless debates. See:
 * Votes for deletion/Stephanie Heinrich (Aug 04 - appears it was a delete, article was recreated in July 05 and not been challenged since)
 * Votes for deletion/Audra Lynn (Oct. 04 keep)
 * Votes for deletion/Dalene Kurtis (Dec. 04 keep)
 * Articles for deletion/Carmella DeCesare (Feb 05 keep)
 * Articles for deletion/Alison Waite (April 06 keep)
 * Articles_for_deletion/Liz_Stewart (March 07 keep)
 * Articles for deletion/Marliece Andrada (Sept 07 keep) (Closer comment: "Absent stronger evidence, there is a longstanding consensus that all Playboy centerfolds are notable, given the fame of the publication both within and without its genre.")
 * Articles for deletion/Kimberly Evenson (May 08 keep)
 * Articles_for_deletion/Charlotte Kemp (Jan 10 keep)
 * Articles for deletion/Kelly Carrington (Feb 10 keep)
 * Articles for deletion/Janet Pilgrim (model) (March 10 keep)
 * Articles for deletion/Margie Harrison (March 10 keep)
 * Articles for deletion/Colleen Farrington (March 10 keep)
 * --Milowent (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - as per Milowent. My compliments to this editor for his memory on this issue. --Morenooso (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - You can refer to the following AFDs to see that consensus has clearly changed and Playmates are not neccesarily considered notable. Articles for deletion/Ulrika Ericsson, Articles for deletion/Gig Gangel, Articles for deletion/Whitney Kaine, Articles for deletion/Hope Olson, Articles for deletion/Debra Peterson, Articles for deletion/Aliya Wolf, Articles for deletion/Karen Hafter. EuroPride (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Its worth noting that far more of these recent playmate AfDs ended in keeps.--Milowent (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, m o ɳ o  01:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:ENT, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * Keep - per Milowent. Presidence has been shown to keep these articles, plus it does us no harm to keep them---they are obviously notable enough that some people might be of interest in the articles.  In fact looking at the number of people who have visited her page, it is safe to state that averaging 20 people per day since this article was created is not that bad.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 08:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, just to put into context, Wikipedia's least notable porn actresses average about 100 visits per day. Epbr123 (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Several Playmate articles have been deleted over the past few days, so there clearly is not a precedent that they are notable. Subject fails WP:GNG and other notability guidelines. EuroPride (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF as my vote remains a Keep. --Morenooso (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Can't see from the refs at the article that she satisfies WP:BIO. Some are pay to view, some are passing references. There should not be automatic notability for having a staple through your nude picture in the center of some magazine, or for being a model for some company, or for being on the cover of some magazine. Edison (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - These playmate articles may not meet the notability criteria for Pornographic actors and models, however they are not really pornographic models by the standards of today’s modern society. They are however American popular cultural icons, virtually as American as apple pie.  A playmate has more in common with the Venus de Milo then Jenna Jameson, and though there may be limited information on some of these earlier playmates due to the fact that not even playboy itself kept stats and biographical information on them.  The fact remains that they are each unique and deserve their own article / page.
 * 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.