Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priscilla Taylor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Priscilla Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Barely notable and poorly referenced BLP. Since the PORNBIO criteria of being a Playmate of the Month was deprecated, I feel that this article no longer meets our guidelines. She also acted in a teen sitcom which was not all that successful, and for which most of the other stars are redlinks. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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#RFC:_Every_playmate_is_notable 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:
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stephanie Heinrich (Aug 04 - appears it was a delete, article was recreated in July 05 and not been challenged since)
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Audra Lynn (Oct. 04 keep)
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dalene Kurtis (Dec. 04 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmella DeCesare (Feb 05 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Waite (April 06 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Liz_Stewart (March 07 keep)
- Wikipedia: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.")
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Evenson (May 08 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charlotte Kemp (Jan 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Carrington (Feb 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Pilgrim (model) (March 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margie Harrison (March 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colleen Farrington (March 10 keep)
- --Milowent (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO per her mainstream appearances.[1] Epbr123 (talk) 07:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:PORNBIO was changed recently, playmates are no longer notable. Her mainstream appearances do not justify notability as they are not significant. I also reject Milowent's argument that giving every playmate an article will be easier to administer. That does not make sense. Aditya Ex Machina 17:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Playboy Playmate appearance is notable, whether specifically acknowledged by WP's home-made definitions or not. Besides that, has made mainstream appearances. Dekkappai (talk) 06:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You couldn't be more wrong, Dekkapai. Playboy Playmate appearances are now explicitly not notable by themselves, going by the removal of that line from the guidelines. Other than that, her 'mainstream appearances' as you call them, consists of roles like 'Bathing Suit Girl' , 'Towel Girl' and 'Blonde Actress Needing Reading' in one episode of each show. I hate being the one to tell you this, but your knowledge of policy and practise is much below what I'd expect from someone participating in AfDs. Aditya Ex Machina 06:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've written nearly 600 articles and managed never to have a single one deleted yet. Without requesting them, I was given Autoreview rights by an Admin I'd never encountered before, merely because he'd been impressed with my work. So, Aditya, I don't give a fat rat's ass what your opinion of my knowledge of policy is. And more importantly, it is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Personally, I believe that if you don't know that an appearance as a Playboy Playmate is notable, then you are too ignorant of US popular culture to make a valid argument here. But I wouldn't make such a personal statement had you not made yours. What is relevant is WP:CCC. This decision on Playmates was made recently, by a small group of editors who frequent rule-making boards. This decision is being tested at AfDs by editors who actually have some experience and knowledge in the subject area. I would ask, and WP policy asks, that you be respectful to those opinions even if you disagree with them. Dekkappai (talk)
- Ooo, brutal. I've written exactly 0 articles, and I don't have autoreviewer rights either. Congrats on your rights though. I was extremely inspired. If you're so concerned about PORNBIO, then you should have participated in that discussion. Consensus can change, in this case, it did. Playmates are no longer inherently notable, and this does not depend on the number of articles you have written, or whether you have autoreviewer rights. Way to go ignoring policy, though. Aditya Ex Machina 08:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe Dekkappai comment's were entirely appropriate and based on deep editing experience. I believe your response is petty.--Milowent (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps so. I'd attribute it to frustration though. Some people (you're included) don't participate in policy discussions when they're taking place, and then whine about it later. If you have issues with the policy, take it up on the policy page, not on individual AfDs. And if you want to change the policy, talk about it there. There's enough going on out here without you guys messing everything up. Aditya Ex Machina 14:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not "messing" anything up. Its already clear to me these AfDs are pretty worthless, because in the RFC and elsewhere it was discussed without apparent objection that any deleted article content was going to end up in a Playmates of 20XX article. I didn't participate in the RFC because I had idea it existed. Precedents occurs, to the extent they exist, in AfDs.--Milowent (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps so. I'd attribute it to frustration though. Some people (you're included) don't participate in policy discussions when they're taking place, and then whine about it later. If you have issues with the policy, take it up on the policy page, not on individual AfDs. And if you want to change the policy, talk about it there. There's enough going on out here without you guys messing everything up. Aditya Ex Machina 14:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe Dekkappai comment's were entirely appropriate and based on deep editing experience. I believe your response is petty.--Milowent (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ooo, brutal. I've written exactly 0 articles, and I don't have autoreviewer rights either. Congrats on your rights though. I was extremely inspired. If you're so concerned about PORNBIO, then you should have participated in that discussion. Consensus can change, in this case, it did. Playmates are no longer inherently notable, and this does not depend on the number of articles you have written, or whether you have autoreviewer rights. Way to go ignoring policy, though. Aditya Ex Machina 08:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've written nearly 600 articles and managed never to have a single one deleted yet. Without requesting them, I was given Autoreview rights by an Admin I'd never encountered before, merely because he'd been impressed with my work. So, Aditya, I don't give a fat rat's ass what your opinion of my knowledge of policy is. And more importantly, it is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Personally, I believe that if you don't know that an appearance as a Playboy Playmate is notable, then you are too ignorant of US popular culture to make a valid argument here. But I wouldn't make such a personal statement had you not made yours. What is relevant is WP:CCC. This decision on Playmates was made recently, by a small group of editors who frequent rule-making boards. This decision is being tested at AfDs by editors who actually have some experience and knowledge in the subject area. I would ask, and WP policy asks, that you be respectful to those opinions even if you disagree with them. Dekkappai (talk)
- You couldn't be more wrong, Dekkapai. Playboy Playmate appearances are now explicitly not notable by themselves, going by the removal of that line from the guidelines. Other than that, her 'mainstream appearances' as you call them, consists of roles like 'Bathing Suit Girl' , 'Towel Girl' and 'Blonde Actress Needing Reading' in one episode of each show. I hate being the one to tell you this, but your knowledge of policy and practise is much below what I'd expect from someone participating in AfDs. Aditya Ex Machina 06:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The number of GNews hits [2] convinces me that she satisfies the GNG. Plus her mainstream appearances satisfy PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.