Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candice Cassidy

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. Shimeru (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candice Cassidy[edit]

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

Not notable Off2riorob (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG,nothing in the text that shows any Wikipedia:Notability (people).

Delete (weak) Wasn't it recently decided that 'Playmate of the Month' was no longer sufficiently notable? OTOH, 'first outdoor shoot in 10 years' (or whatever that was) raises notability a little. David V Houston (talk) 18:15, 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!} 18:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I realize this is part of a good faith mass nomination by Off2riorob, 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 2010 playmates)----Milowent (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment: In addition to the comment above, which I have repeated in some form or fashion on the parade of recent Playmate AfDs, I wanted to note that I added a feature in an Argentina newspaper about her, and another editor below seemed to locate one in Russian that is beyond my translation skills. There is another feature article on her already cited.--Milowent (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Article is sourced and one of the two primary ones (University Chronicle) is independent of the subject, though I'd like to see more sources used. Tabercil (talk) 04:17, 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) 15:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keepper Off2riorob and Tabercil. For the record, I don't read that. Bearian (talk) 00:37, 22 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]
About 30 people commented in Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2010#RFC: Every playmate is notable, while about 15 people have commented in this series of AfDs. If anything, these AfDs are the obscure local decisions. Epbr123 (talk) 08:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both are 'obscure' if you consider the number of active editors on wikipedia. What we do know is that subsequent to one "delete" in mid-2004 (article was later recreated and has existed for 5 years), an AfD for a Playboy playmate has not resulted in a "delete" close in almost 6 years.--Milowent (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Besides being a Playmate, which is notable whether WP:PORNBIO mentions it specifically or not, has reliable secondary sourcing. More would be better, but there it is. Dekkappai (talk) 06:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage found isn't quite enough to pass GNG in my opinion. Epbr123 (talk) 11:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks significant levels of coverage to pass GNG and fails PORNBIO. EuroPride (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know Spanish? If so, these links might help. And then there's this which is in a language that I don't recognize. Warning: NSFW. Dismas|^(talk) 08:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last link appears to be a feature on her in a Ukranian source published in Russian.--Milowent (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The El Argentino article (a m-f Buenos Aires tabloid paper) is about how she is unusual because she doesn't have breast implants. I have added the cite to the article.--Milowent (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the consensus at the RfC was pretty clear that this award 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 21:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ENT, limited news coverage is not substantial enough to satsfy the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer and Natalie Jo Campbell (almost all keeps) shows how the vote count of these playmate AfDs is highly dependent on which editors happen by.--Milowent (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's true for AfD in general. Although in this case, it actually depends more on whether the Playmate meets GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 07:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article meets WP:GNG in my opinion. Dismas|^(talk) 07:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Standard WP:BIO1E case. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 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/Heather Rae Young. I'd 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) 23:14, 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: It appears from a few comments above, that there might be some additional research ongoing. -- Cirt (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: These articles about rather unknown playmates should be rolled up into one larger article. Coopman86 (talk) 02:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's the problem. Step 1: remove being a Playmate from WP:PORNBIO. Step 2: .... Step 3: AFDs! There was no step 2. Yes, probably a lot of Playmate articles could be treated in table form in a master list with no loss of data; but even their weights and measurements and trends involving those stats has been studied many times. There was no plan to deal with the information in the separate articles about Playmates for whom that's their only claim to fame, and until such a plan exists I think bulk article deletions are premature. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The history is quite comedic. As far as I can tell, PORNBIO said nothing about playmates always being notable until April 2009, when it was added, presumably in light of every AFD in the prior 4+ years ending in a keep. Then when it was taken out, it was treated as if it was a change in consensus instead of PORNBIO merely not reflecting whether there was a consensus either way (as it was before). In my opinion, these AfDs are a waste of time because any deleted playmate articles are being covered in List of Playmates of XXXX articles, and no information is being deleted. So now we have a more haphazard organization system, though via redirects it will be accessible.--Milowent (talk) 03:36, 30 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
Keep Passes GNG. I'm inclined to give that even more credence than normal based on the sourced being from multiple continents.Horrorshowj (talk) 17:02, 2 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.