Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tylyn John


 * 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Tylyn John

 * – ( 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 02:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Substantive news coverage for her work after being a playmate. Having been a playmate is not an automatic disqualification to otherwise notable people. Article needs improvement with additional references, not deletion. Monty  845  03:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1992. 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) 17:20, 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) 19:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Blanket posting of the same reply suggests you haven't really examined the articles individually for exceptions.&mdash;RJH (talk)
 * Not actually. These articles read all the same. --Damiens .rf 01:31, 30 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) 20:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep USA Today and the New York Post mention her for her illness. Others cover her as the leader of one of Playboy's sports team.  All but one of the Google news results is hidden behind a paywall, so I can't read the entire articles, but the titles and summaries that appear in the search seem to indicate she is notable.   D r e a m Focus  09:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: mention of an illness and leadership of a Playboy sports team is not just trivial coverage, it is vapidly trivial coverage. Speculation as to what might be behind paywalls is not evidence of significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG and offers no substantive articulation of any specialised notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:30, 2 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) 13:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per DreamFocus.--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Dreamfocus asked us to keep the article because there's trivial coverage about her some papers and maybe non-trivial coverage on articles he/she can't read (behind a paywall), what's not much defensible. --Damiens .rf 20:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you read the summaries for yourself before deciding to sass me? They mention she working to bring awareness to a disease, plus cover her for other things as well.   D r e a m Focus  01:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per the articles from the New York Post, Los Angeles Times, and Toronto Star articles from the Google News search. It goes beyond trivial coverage especially the New York post and her fight against scleroderma. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Being a Playboy centerfold may not guarantee notability; but it does not guarantee non-notability either. However in this case, Tylyn John's having been a centerfold and having well-publicised scleroderma has made her notable.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:28, 6 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.