Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Playboy models

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. Considering this AfD and other recent AfDs on various lists of Playboy models, it seems that there is significant disagreement on the best way to organize this content. For those that believe that the content isn't organized well, I'd suggest starting an RFC to determine the ideal organization first, and then delete any lists that are no longer needed in the new organization (as opposed to deleting first and reorganizing later). —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Playboy models

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:NLIST suggests that for stand-alone lists, the list as a collective (though not necessarily its individual items) should have been discussed by sources that pass GNG.

As far as I can tell, such sources have not done so for this collection. I have found sources discussing sub-lists of this list ("Celebrities", "Famous people", "Athletes" etc), but I have found no list where the collective is discussed.

Further, the articles themselves cite no sources, and I suspect a lot of the content is WP:OR; for instance, not only is Maureen Hingert's mention not cited, their article makes no mention of their claimed appearance.

I am also nominating the following sub-lists:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Describing the contents of a published work, which can be easily verified by reading the work itself, hardly constitutes original research. Not being mentioned in a particular model's Wikipedia biography is a matter of due weight, not verifiability. As for Maureen Hingert/Jana Davi, the Playboy issue is obviously retrievable and there's at least one Google Books hit (Six Decades of Centerfolds). • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_XXXX just closed as keep. The Playmate is apparently whoever is in the centerfold, and it is different than who is on the Cover and Pictorials. Some of those on this list are notable for being in the magazine, that an accomplishment for their porn careers I suppose. Plenty of blue links, and a valid grouping, so this is a suitable navigational article. Dream Focus 05:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The above linked discussion closed as no consensus, not keep, and on a personal note I was not aware of the recent discussion; thank you for bringing it to my attention Focus. Incidentally, I am not aware of the specifics of the navigation standard, and haven't been able to find the policy about it; could you point me in the right direction? BilledMammal (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You already linked to it, just didn't read the bottom part. Search for the word "navigation". Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justified under the general notability criteria. They do not, however, apply to pages whose primary purpose is navigation (e.g. all disambiguation pages and some lists). Dream Focus 23:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, WP:LISTPURP; thank you. I'm not sure it meets the definition of "navigation" provided there; if users don't know the name of the person they are searching for, I don't believe the list will be of much help. Of all the options, I believe its would best align to "information", but even there I'm not confident that it qualifies. BilledMammal (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Dream Focus. --GRuban (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Repackage per Clarityfiend and Hullabaloo Wolfowitz, who are saying very similar things, and are convincing. "People in Playboy" is too vague, separate lists of interviews or cover models seems reasonable. --GRuban (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Being a Playmate of the Month is notable. So is being a celebrity who posed for Playboy, but not just anybody, e.g. obscure actresses like Meg Myles and Marla English, anymore than List of people in ''Time'' magazine or List of people lampooned by ''Mad'' magazine. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename List of Playboy cover models and jettison the Interview subject and pictorials columns. People on the cover of Playboy are fine.[1][2] Clarityfiend (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about just being on the cover of any magazine at all? Lists of covers of Time magazine Lists of Harper's Bazaar cover models List of people on the cover of Maxim magazine Lists of people on the United States cover of Rolling Stone List of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue cover models List of Vogue Korea cover models and many more. Category:Lists of people by magazine appearance is the main category. Some things aren't put in it yet that should be. Every magazine that exists can have a list of who is on the cover. Many people subscribe to magazines, without knowing who will be on the cover in future issues, and usually buy them for other reasons than just the one famous person. But with Playboy they are buying them for who is pictured in them. Dream Focus 12:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Covers are okay, just not every woman who bared it all in the magazine. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, although not for the reasons set out by the nominator. Playboy was an influential magazine for a few decades, even if its fiction and journalism took a back seat in the public eye to its (un)coverage of attractive women. These lists were constructed not to actually present the consequential "people in Playboy" -- the articles don't mention fiction published by Ballard, Vonnegut, Le Guin, Garcia Marques, Calvino, Borges, or David Foster Wallace, to say nothing of nonfiction from Woodward & Bernstein to Thompson, Capote, and McLuhan. And while the listings of undraped conventional glamour models are often annotated in loving detail, more surprising appearances, like Shere Hite, go unmentioned. Some of this material, like lists of cover models, can be appropriately repackaged. But this article, riddled with systematic omissions like the facts that Alex Haley interviewed MLK and Alvin Toffler interviewed Vladimir Nabokov (while detailing the circumstances of Suzanne Somers's posing) is demonstrably lacking encyclopedic sensibility. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Keep The rationale given for outright deletion is unconvincing. Better to expand, rename etc than merely to delete. 82.15.254.27 (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see why this page should be deleted.

It is just a reference page, and any deletion would be seen as revisionist and backwards to what actually happened and who was featured where. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.244.35.55 (talk) 06:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dream Focus.4meter4 (talk) 06:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Playboy is notable. Being in Playboy is notable. Remove any unsubstantiated members of the list but the list itself passes WP:NLIST. Ifnord (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ifnord. In regard to its impact for a period of time: WP:NTEMP. Some sort of repurposing may be due per Dream Focus and GRuban. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I also think it should be renamed to "List of Playboy Models," but definitely do not delete. Peter303x (talk) 01:38, 21 September 2021 (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.