Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulrika Ericsson


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 10:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Ulrika Ericsson

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Playmate stub BLP. She hasn't done anything besides being a playmate in 1996, which is no longer a valid criterion under PORNBIO. The Wordsmith Communicate 17:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: I realize this is part of a good faith mass nomination started by Off2riorob and now apparently expanded by The Wordsmith, 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 other playmates now pending).  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. The fact that WP:PORNBIO was recently amended doesn't change the past precedent.  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) 21:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - per WP:HOTTIE REQUIRES A COLD SHOWER AFTER VIEWING HOTTIE (sorry about the levity). Seriously, gets ghits. --Morenooso (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You do know that neither of those address our inclusion guidelines, right? The Wordsmith Communicate 15:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 07:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails the GNG and WP:ENT. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. The community has expressed a new view on playmates. That view should be honoured. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per above - Unsourced BLP of a person who fails both WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. EuroPride (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment unless the subject is actually involved in the making of pornographic films, PORNBIO is no longer an applicable guidleine.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - If PORNBIO no longer applies, then this was a bad nomination. --Morenooso (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think she satisfies the criteria of any other notability guidelines? EuroPride (talk) 10:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Most definitely. She has mainstream credits in addition to being a playmate/model. These are WP:POINT nominations. --Morenooso (talk) 10:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I really suggest you withdraw your assertion that I am being disruptive. PORNBIO still applies, since her biggest claim to fame is arguably in the area of softcore porn. It still applies and she fails it. The Wordsmith Communicate 16:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Those "mainstream credits" amount to one appearance on a tv morning show and off-camera work as an accountant, 12 years apart. It's not really even clear that either credit actually relates to th article subject rather than a similarly named person. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not satisfy WP:PORNBIO. These are not WP:POINT nominations. Wikipedia policies are applied retroactively. Aditya Ex Machina  17:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - I get far more in the way of results on sources for a tennis player of the same name, even considering that she was in Playboy. Clearly fails WP:GNG. --Darkwind (talk) 08:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep   as discussed at the other nominations, the general community is of the opinion that every playmate of the month is notable ax such, this being a distinctive recogition in the industry. The recent   change has no general consensus and Wikipedia   is not bound by it.Nothing further than that need be asserted or demonstrated, though of course other verified material about her  career is welcome.  DGG ( talk ) 07:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The article was tagged with BLP unsourced which i have removed, perhaps more than once. The article is not unsourced.  It is obviously sourced by the two sources given in the article, an IMDB external link and a Playboy.com link.  I am removing incorrect "BLP unsourced" tags (and "BLP unreferenced" which is a redirect) from many articles.  There is some discussion about an alternative IMDB-specific tag at wt:URBLP. --doncram (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are not being used as sources, they are external links. Sources should be cited inline making them appear in a "References" section.  Dismas |(talk) 20:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * They are obviously the sources in this short article. I use inline citations all the time, i am perfectly well aware.  But, the article is not unsourced.  I removed the incorrect BLP unsourced tag again.  Someone can tag it with "nofootnotes if they wish.  But Wikipedia is under public scrutiny for having completely unsourced BLP articles.  This should not be inflating the current count (around 35,000 now). --doncram (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Her date of birth. Where was it obtained from? The Playboy article does not mention it. IMDb is not a RS. Aditya Ex Machina  08:56, 29 April 2010 (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.