Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veronica Gamba (2nd nomination)

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. "Prodecural keep" !votes are invalid when multiple people believe an article should be deleted. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Gamba

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

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 criteria. The article also claims she appeared on "several mainstream movies like THIS, THIS and THAT". A trip to imbd reveals she only made THIS, THIS and THAT at all. And mostly minnor roles. Damiens.rf 02:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1983. 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) 02:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 19:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While doing my nightly relist run I have noticed that you pasted this comment to every single one of these playmate noms. If you really think they all should be deleted then I can somewhat understand not wanting to type a fresh delete !vote for all of these but you !voted "keep" in the first AFD. What specifically changed you mind for this subject? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user 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) 14:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per pornbio criteria 4 and her mainstream credits. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PORNBIO criterion 4 says "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media". This girl took part in 2 tv series episodes and 2 movies (one of them playing Girl at Picnic). --Damiens.rf 16:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, she did. Multiple times in notable mainstream media. If you have a problem with the word featured however, it was discussed and left intentionally confusing.[1] Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. PORNBIO applies only to those working in the pornography industry, not to "glamour models" generally. Otherwise we'd be giving a free pass on notability to the hordes of GNG-failing subjects who've ever had their pictures taken with their T and/or A on display and have a few bit parts in movies, tv, or reality TV. "Intentionally confusing" isn't the same as "without any limits". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to List of Playboy Playmates of 1983. Although she does not pass WP:N on her own, she could still be a search term, and whatever information is available here could simply be merged into the main article. Her main stream roles should be cited, if they are not trivial. All due respect to Carrite, but the use of automated deletion nominating bots does not seem to fall under the purview of the AfD board; from my understanding, the AfD board is just to discuss the possible deletion of articles. If there is a decision from higher up saying that these articles have to be renominated manually or whatnot, that is fine. However, I feel that keeping them all on principle would be counterproductive. This argument will be copied and pasted, with slight modification, in the debate sections for all applicable AfDs of this ilk. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per prior afd, which was practically unanimous. Things really haven't changed in a years' time, just the editors who are active on this issue.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [2]. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 20:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Milowent and Monty845. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2011 (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.