Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Vernola

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. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Vernola

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable Off2riorob (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wasn't it recently decided that 'Playmate of the Month' was no longer sufficiently notable? David V Houston (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When putting an article up for deletion, you need to state why you are putting it up for deletion more then "not notable." Why is this person not notable? Just saying not notable is not giving the people information they need in discussing a biography related AfD. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG,nothing in the text that shows any Wikipedia:Notability (people). Off2riorob (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: 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.--Milowent (talk) 04:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete or merge to list article. Does not evidence notability as defined by substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources unrelated to the subject. Hipocrite (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. No evidence of passing notability criteria in WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. EuroPride (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep consensus is and remains that they are all notable, as seen =by the entire series of nominations here. If any individual one happens not to get the necessary attention because of the excessive number of nominations, it is clearly because of an attempt to overwhelm afd, and the articles will soon be reinstated. DGG ( talk ) 08:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DGG. In this particular case, the subject is the playmate for the June 2010 issue, which is not released yet I would assume. No playmate article has been deleted in about 6 years of AfDs, so presumably this article was created in anticipation of additional information being added. E.g., you can see the slew of keeps on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather Rae Young--Milowent (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the consensus at the RfC was pretty clear that this distinction is not suitable for inclusion within itself, and the RfC was widely advertised with much more participation than at these AfD debates. Because of this sourcing requirement no subjects get automatic inclusion or "inherited notability", which is basically the argument that some editors are making above. I haven't found the level of coverage necessary to meet the GNG. This article also fails WP:CRYSTAL, as it is only deals with future speculation about a distinction that isn't notable in itself. Them From Space 22:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even really see a "consensus" at that RFC, to be honest. There were more "removes" than "keeps" but not a clear consensus.--Milowent (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero relevant GNews hits, negligible Google presence in general, and no reliable sources verifying the main claim to notability. The only "reference" is a self-published source that somehow has been treated as reliable for other articles, even though BLP pretty clearly says otherwise. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:28, 27 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.