Talk:List of Playboy Playmates of 2014

Amanda Booth's Birthday

According her profil in the Playboy Magazine, Amanda Booth was born on July 1984 and not July 1986. http://www.imagebam.com/image/b8516c292397878

Playboyblog fif a mistake.

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athanatophobos (talk • contribs) 05:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Your image actually confirms the 7/14/1986 birth date - as does another source now used in this article. Guy1890 (talk) 05:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

References

It was mentioned at External links/Noticeboard that this article needs citations to reliable sources. It is covered in the policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and was tagged June 27, 2014. I would like to comment here for relevance, additional info, and hopefully action. This is, as stated in the EL/noticeboard, a BLP-oriented page

• This article is a candidate for "deletion" but also the policy Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people includes "the biography contains a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article" and there are thus far seven listed. I realize it is titled as a list but with the added biographical templates (names and personal information) can probably be considered a misnamed article. When a Wikipedia search is performed on the playmates some are redirects to this "list". March was missed and June has an article by that name; Jessica Ashley. It seems to me it would be more appropriate to use red links for articles that will likely be created than to redirect to a "list" that contains article information. Otr500 (talk) 08:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

  These "lists" are simply attempts to get around our notability guidelines and the deletion of articles about non-notable people. I think the time has come to delete them. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

These "lists" are an entirely appropriate way to cover "Playmates", which are a significant cultural entity, without devoting separate pages to each individual Playmate, who may or may not be sufficiently "notable" by Wikipedia's standards. However, it seems that these pages are under assault by editors who appear to have no interest in or knowledge about Playboy, Playmates, or links to sites that do know about them, including official Playboy sites. They claim violations of this or that Wikipedia policy, and when challenged or debunked, merely reassert their claims without actually answering the counter-arguments. They are sabotaging these pages and making them pretty near useless to anyone coming to this section of Wikipedia wanting to know about Playmates. You can list their names, but heaven forbid you provide a link that details exactly where you can find them actually being Playmates! It would be better if the disapproving editors just acknowledged that they consider this section to be "morally offensive" and "unsuitable for coverage in Wikipedia". Wikilister (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you WP:FOC? --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I am amazed at what I have read and found out. First, and in response to a scathing and what I consider inappropriate reply, I have no problem with Playboy articles as Wikipedia is not censored. I will ask, aside from focusing on the issue at hand, please assume good faith and not make blanket arbitrary unfounded comments?

Because some editors take issue with articles in blatant violation of Wikipedia policies does not automatically mean they object because of moral issues, but articles (or content therein) "unsuitable for coverage in Wikipedia" that we object to, does have valid reasoning. Articles that have survived for long periods with violations have done so with consensus by silence and this ceases when one person objects. Individuals who may or may not be sufficiently "notable" do not get a green light for backdoor inclusion just because they fit "a significant cultural entity". What one may consider "entirely appropriate" might just be a matter of opinion that may not pass consensus from a Wikipedia policy point of view.

I have found that there is some cleanup going on but this only partially addresses the severe issues. The external links are but one issue. The want (or need) to create, maintain, or improve articles must adhere to Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines and stand-alone lists are still articles. This article, no matter how much supposed improvements, while lacking approved references has severe problems. It contains biographical information on living people and is subject to a higher standard than other articles, including Playmates not living, and Wikipedia is very clear on this. There are no references on this article. This violates core content policies, and also subjects notable for one event. The "list" contains self redirects, This article (or parts) and List of Playboy Playmates of the Month, that contains over 700 "articles" and many (like the article link Margie Harrison) redirects to List of Playboy Playmates of 1954#January, that is yet another "list", with an abundance of biographical article information referenced with external links only. These articles are candidates for deletion requests, to include speedy deletion for self-redirects (#7), deletion for biographical article violations (no references etc.), and let's not forget that creating an article title to redirect to a list article with no references includes that title also because if the "List" fails Wikipedia policies and guidelines so does the redirected article title. List of Playboy models is a list article to more list articles that are, for some reason, self-redirected so it would appear this is more a diambig page, List of Playboy Playmates by birthplace is a list article but does contain redirects to another list article. There may be WP:COPYVIO issues with the links to pictures also.

I would think it would be more prudent to try to see what improvements (if any) would pass consensus, and discuss these in a civil manner, rather than other options such as seeing just how "appropriate" they really are. Then again, it has been my experience that some would rather battle, with more likely than not negative results, than seek consensus on article content. Otr500 (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete

Skimming through past discussions (starting with Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pornography/Archive_6#Proposal_to_change_List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of..._to_simple_lists), it looks like there was agreement that being selected a Playmate of the Month alone did not meet notability criteria. In response to this agreement, these articles were created to get around the decision and likely deletion of many articles. Unless there are similar lists where BLP applies and are of WP:GA-level, we should go ahead with deletion.

These people are already noted in List_of_Playboy_models, List_of_Playboy_Playmates_by_birthplace, and List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_the_Month. --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

When you state "we should go ahead with deletion", you are meaning? I am not up to speed on this yet, nor the relevant discussions, and know there are a lot of affected links. I can not see any reason to have triple redundancy, let alone quadruple.

The "List of Playboy models" is not a "list of models" but a list to links broken down by year. As noted; all of these on the list are covered in "List of Playboy Playmates of the Month" which is broken down by year already. That actually means that each list (7 total) by groups of years, could be deleted (This would be the same for the other article lists that are found to be only redundancy), without any valid objections, and the title "List of Playboy models" redirected to "List of Playboy Playmates of the Month". List of people in Playboy 2010–2019 contains future dates and this is not usually acceptable. What bothers me is the AfD process. Is there any way to get involvement from an admin to group these? There does not appear to be any positive discussion on a very needed cleanup, even though it is plain to see these are duplication's. I have to assume any changes will be controversial.

There is also the issue of all the article Playmate titles, that do not have content, that were redirected to the lists and even self-redirected, such as the navbox on List of Playboy Playmates of 2000 and this article (list). These are shown as wiki-links when they were apparently created to be redirects. They could be blanked and redirected but this negates (or is a way around) link colors. Otr500 (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying that all the "List of Playboy Playmates of..." articles should be deleted. --Ronz (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

WOW! While a really nice short answer, it does about that much for potentially solving a problem. Maybe you are just too busy? One may wonder how all these rogue "less than articles" masked as such, with a multitude of violations, have been allowed to remain. Anyway, looks like they will win again. Have a nice day. Otr500 (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to be clear about my concerns and their extent because I don't understand yours. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I've requested help in setting up the AfD here. --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The first comment confirms my concerns about trying a multiple deletion. While waiting for other feedback, other options are: WP:PROD (Where not already attempted. Note that WP:BLPPROD because these are lists.). I think speedy deletion is a stretch, though WP:G4, WP:G8, and WP:A7 might be interpreted as applying. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you try to find sources at e.g. Google books? Remember AFD is not cleanup. Christian75 (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused as to why this is being brought up.

To be clear, I think the articles should be deleted. The only cleanup I see that would be appropriate would be to make these into simple lists, but that has already been done with List of Playboy Playmates of the Month. No amount of sourcing is going to fix these lists. The lists were created to work around individual Playmates' articles being deleted. --Ronz (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to get my head around what you're proposing. Let's list what we have:

1. List of Playboy models - that in turn points to 7 subarticles about List of People in Playboy broken out by decade
2. List of Playboy Playmates by birthplace - presumably this has all of them
3. List of Playboy Playmates of the Month - this has all of the Playmates in one place
4. List of Playboy Playmates of X, where X is a given year (e.g, List of Playboy Playmates of 2000)

Now, you're proposing to eliminate all of the ones in category 4 right? Tabercil (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Exactly - the yearly lists. --Ronz (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I also see the list(s) as a "get around" angle. The lists are redundant per #2 and #3 above. Otr500 (talk) 03:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Given this discussion, I think a single AfD of this article might be best. If that there's little or no policy-based opposition in the AfD, then maybe just PROD the rest. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• I Agree: Otr500 (talk) 04:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion?

Athanatophobos July 16th 2014

Hello,

I delete Stephanie Branton's mention as the PoM for September 2014. I can understand "glamour centrefold" is not regarded as a reliable source even though this site is usually right.

So, we can wait the official annonce of the September PoM. No use deleting this page anyway.

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athanatophobos (talk • contribs) 09:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Trimmed to just the names

If there's any good argument for inclusion of anything other than the names, it has yet to be made.

While I appreciate the work on finding sources, they are extremely poor sources that I don't believe meet BLP criteria. They all just appear to be echo-chambers for Playboy, piggy-backing for some clickthrough.

If there's some argument that we can somehow meet BLP, let's find it. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• That trimming to just the names while the AFD was going is ridiculous; these yearly articles have been around quite a long time, the AfD can run its course without harm to the wanking habits of wikipedia readers. Should we similarly trim List of Scripps National Spelling Bee champions to just names instead of the words which they won by? Whether its a breast size or finding the word feuilleton, this is content that readers come to encyclopedias to find.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  So the argument is that if they come here for the information, we provide it?

  In the case of the spelling bee, it's the winning word that's being emphasized, not the person. The amount of information about the person is minimal. The criteria for winning is clear and unambiguous. The media coverage is significant. The amount of self-promotion for the organizations involved is minor (though the sponsor information is a bit over the top). --Ronz (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• If you revert the article to a stub again, you'll be blocked. Its extremely uncivil and does not help your argument to employ vigilante style justice of your own choosing.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)