Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadine Chanz

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]

Nadine Chanz

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

BLP of a 1996 playmate. Hasn't done anything else notable, and being a playmate is no longer a valid reason to include per PORNBIO. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:35, 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) 21:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per WP:PORNSTAR and her four mainstream appearances on various TV series listed at IMDb. --Morenooso (talk) 03:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO per mainstream appearances.[1] Epbr123 (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment PORNBIO has been made into a guideline that now applies only to those actually involved in the making of pornographic films. It seems PORNBIO is no longer an applicable guidleine for Playboy Playmates. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, since the Playmate line was the only criterion justifying the notability of Playmates. This would imply that the said article should be deleted, yes? Aditya Ex Machina 17:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. The implication is that the nomination was made using a deprecated and inapplicable criteria as a reason to delete... same as if it were asserted that did not meet WP:ATH or WP:PROF... two other also inapplicable guidelines. The (now removed) section was set to acknowledge the then-existing consensus toward the notability of playmates that had not actually performed in porn films... however, it is not the only criteria available to judge notability. So we can move back up the ladder to the parent WP:N to decide if her having been a Playboy Playmate is enough to make her "worthy of note". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Apparently that rewrite was a bad one as now Wikipedia is faced with all these AfDs which are a WP:POINT. Since the nomination cites WP:PORNBIO and the nominator mostly knew about the change, then this becomes non-WP:AGF nomination. Still, with a playmate with mainstream credits like these, the subcriterial of PORNBIO should apply. Morenooso (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What point do you think Wordsmith is trying to make? All guidelines are applied retroactively, including PORNBIO. The mainstream credits by themselves do not satisfy the notability criteria. Aditya Ex Machina 17:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really suggest you withdraw your assertion that I am disruptively nominating articles. I have a good faith belief that the handful of articles I nominated (a half dozen) do not meet our inclusion criteria. Its not like I nominated all of the 500 non-notable playmates, just five (plus a computer game that stars one of them). To address the "mainstream appearances" bit, I submit that those appearances to not give indication of notability. If this were a non-playmate actress, those appearances wouldn't meet our criteria. She doesn't meet PORNBIO and she doesn't meet ENTERTAINER. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - per rationale above of mine concerning WP:PORNBIO. Morenooso (talk) 10:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)already !voted above The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not satisfy WP:PORNBIO. These are not WP:POINT nominations. Wikipedia policies are applied retroactively. Aditya Ex Machina 17:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUCK. --Morenooso (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DICK. Aditya Ex Machina 07:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, Aditya is not a sockpuppet. If you believe otherwise, SPI is over here. The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Playboy Playmate is a notable modeling appearance, whether specifically mentioned in "notability" or not. That plus mainstream appearances. Dekkappai (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both past and current general consensus is that Playmate of the month is notable, as a most distinctive achievement with world-wide recognition. An attempot to obtain local consensus to change this should be rejected as not having general support. DGG ( talk ) 07:29, 26 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.