Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather Rae Young

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 no consensus. ...Seriously, the Venus de Milo? Shimeru (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Rae Young

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

Not notable Off2riorob (talk) 16:30, 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) 18:13, 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!} 18:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG,nothing in the text that shows any Wikipedia:Notability (people). Off2riorob (talk) 19:55, 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. (see also other AfDs of 2010 playmates)--Milowent (talk) 04:04, 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) 10:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. No evidence of passing notability criteria in WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. EuroPride (talk) 11:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Oh screw it. Reliable source blurbs mention her public appearances as a playmate because that's her notability. There's also enough coverage here [1] about her as an import model to add a couple of lines to her bio so I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that she passes GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Morbidthoughts
Keep per Morbidthoughts. Dismas|^(talk) 14:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Morbidthoughts and WP:OHSCREWIT. Dekkappai (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By longstanding general consensus despite a rather obscure attempt to overthrow it in a local decision, which the community is clearly rejecting. DGG ( talk ) 08:04, 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. Them From Space 21:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, had no idea about that RfC because I never edited or watchlisted playmate articles or wherever they are discussed. When I saw the mass AfDs, I looked into this RfC change. I don't see that RfC as showing a strong consensus anyway. And the RFC closer nom'ed a lot of these recent AfDs i think.--Milowent (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This AfD is now into day 9, and is one of only 2 left open from Apr. 20 noms, the other being another playmate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candice Cassidy. As I just commented on that one, I'd also say this is a no consensus to delete case (note: 3 very brand new playmate articles were closed delete). There are a ream of other playmate AfDs to be concluded in the next 2 days.--Milowent (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could use a bit more to hash out a consensus one way or the other, and if not possible, then to determine if it should be closed as no consensus at that point in time. -- Cirt (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These playmate articles may not meet the notability criteria for Pornographic actors and models, however they are not really pornographic models by the standards of today’s modern society. They are however American popular cultural icons, virtually as American as apple pie. A playmate has more in common with the Venus de Milo then Jenna Jameson, and though there may be limited information on some of these earlier playmates, due to the fact that not even playboy itself kept stats and biographical information on them. The fact remains that they are each unique and deserve their own article / page. 02 May 2010
Delete. Fails WP:ENT, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline, no significant news coverage, no cited film/TV roles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:12, 4 May 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.