List of Playboy Playmates of 2014

List of Playboy Playmates of 2014 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Unsourced BLP being used to work around the consensus that being a Playboy Playmate is not notable. The entries of this list are already part of List of Playboy Playmates of the Month, List of Playboy Playmates by birthplace, and List of people in Playboy 2010–19. (Depending upon how this discussion goes, the other "List of Playboy Playmates of (YEAR)" articles may be considered for deletion as well.) Ronz (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These pages present information that isn't available in the others. Not only are there many photos for identification purposes but there is also the data from the Playmate Data Sheets which is presented in the infoboxes. This data has been used in at least three different studies. (okay, the last one is a 404 now but trust me that it was there) A search just now found this which seems to be referring to the first study I mentioned though I can't access it right now due to content filters at my employer. That said, this seems to be talking about the same study where Playmate figures were compared with social and economic conditions. Then there's this which is another reference to that study. My point is that these figures are used in legitimate studies of socioeconomic factors. And those studies are republished in various journals. Whatever you think of the lists, the data has a use to the sociological and economic communities. Dismas|^(talk) 07:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't keep articles simply because they have information not in others. Nor does the observation that some of the information has been used elsewhere make a case for including it. We do have WP:BLP to follow instead. --Ronz (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  What does BLP have to do with whether this should be kept? postdlf (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Everything. Currently, the article has no sources at all. We could delete all the content, but then it would be redundant with the multiple lists already mentioned. I think we should just go ahead and delete it and save some work. --Ronz (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand if you're not familiar with the subject matter, but the Playboy issues themselves give this information about the models they hire and promote as Playmates. So when a model is identified as the Playmate for March 2014, the issue of Playboy with a March 2014 cover date is the source. So please try again. postdlf (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  So the article exists to promote Playboy? --Ronz (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a different question, the posing of which at this point I can only assume means you've dropped "BLP!" as some kind of relevant deletion rationale. postdlf (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  You assume incorrectly. The article was created to get around WP:BIO, it is unsourced, and sourced implicitly by Playboy - that's an advertisment. So let's add WP:SOAP to the list of problems.

  How about making your own statement, since we're very far from Dismas' rationale of the information has uses? --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Ronz, you're honestly not presenting yourself well here. You're now equivocating notability guidelines (WP:BIO) with BLP, as there is there is no substantive deletion argument based on BLP. And you're continuing to incorrectly (and irrelevantly) assert that the information is unsourced (significantly, not that it's unverifiable, which is an actual deletion rationale). And no, the article was not created to "get around" BIO, as merger to such lists was frequently the result of AFD consensus on the express understanding that most did not satisfy GNG individually. The log at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 May 9 alone contains at least a dozen AFDs for individual playmates closed as "redirect" to the lists by year. Accusing the editors of this list of trying to "get around" a guideline is therefore not only a failure to assume good faith but blatantly incorrect. I'll give a comment on the merits below, but I simply can't tolerate this kind of careless argumentation in an AFD. Try harder. postdlf (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Please WP:FOC. I had hoped we'd have editors experienced with AfDs, especially where WP:BLP and lists are concerned, responding. My own inclination is to avoid AfD discussions, hence the years since I originally saw the problem.

  The articles, the yearly lists, were created to get around WP:BIO. Do we need to document it step by step? This specific article is just more of the same. --Ronz (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. They're already listed elsewhere, particularly in List of Playboy Playmates of the Month. Their physical measurements aren't especially encyclopedic. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Related discussions: The most recent three sections on the article's talk page, ELN discussion, and WT:P* discussion. --Ronz (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While the names might be listed in a table (at List of Playboy Playmates of the Month) those wikilink just go to the year page lists to give more information.

There is sometimes not enough reason to justify having twelve articles for all the Playmates so a list page is the simplest way to keep all the information about the Playmates in one place without having twelve (or 12 x 60) articles created and deleted.

While the information might be duplicated in other articles related to the magazine the lists about the Playmates are the only place the information is collated in this manner (it may be wise to remove Playmates from the more general list that covers everyone who has appeared in the magazine, though again at List of people in Playboy 2010–19 the links to most of the Playmates link back to the list articles, the same is true of List of Playboy Playmates by birthplace).

Compressing all of a decade into one list would make them impractically large, which is why they currently appear in smaller lists.

If you want policy then BLP isn't a real problem (there are multiple sources confirming who the Playmates for each month are) and the title of Playmate is notable enough that the more famous Playmates are identified by that moniker on other wikipages. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, so what you're saying is that the extra info (unsourced, sourced implicitly by Playboy), is why it should be kept, or is there more to it? --Ronz (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (maybe a weak keep). As I note above, these Playmate lists by year were created as a place to merge the individual articles on Playmates who were judged not notable. Repeated AFDs closed with this result, and many of the AFD !voters clearly relied on merger being a possibility. Consensus can change, but this was a very well established one. So that alone gives me concern about deleting these lists in favor of bare lists of names.

  On the notability issue, there is no requirement that individual list entries or merged content merit standalone articles. This makes them the equivalent of character lists for works of fiction as far as notability is concerned. WP:SOAP is, in my opinion, not a serious deletion argument here, any more than it is for any list derived from a mass media commercial property that is unquestionably notable. What constitutes an appropriate level of detail for such a topic is instead a question of editing judgment that falls far short of accusations of "promotion".

  And that brings me to the one thought I have on the deletion side: Playboy's cultural footprint and relevance has dramatically declined over the years. There was a time when every Playmate was a kind of minor celebrity, and if you go back enough years a greater and greater percentage of them will even merit individual articles because it was often a jumping off point to other things. See, e.g., Pamela Anderson, Jenny McCarthy... But have there been many such examples since the 1990s, and do they regularly get any third-party media attention now even as Playmates?

  So I question the extent to which 2014 is still that time such that it is at all informationally useful to continue to name and identify them in this manner. One consequence of that line of thinking is I think the nominator is completely wrong in assuming that deletion of this list, should it occur, necessarily has any significance for the other years' lists. Perhaps someone can come up with a reasonably objective way to draw a line (say, lists after 2000 are more questionable than those before) but I don't know the basis right now on which that could be done. postdlf (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Good points all. Thank you.

  Yes, I think we should discuss the notability issues in some depth. While the individuals are not notable, Playboy and Playboy Playmate are notable. Maybe we should be clear how WP:LISTN is met (or maybe it might not be for 2014 and other recent years given Postdlf's comments)? Is it then appropriate to include information about each and every one from the viewpoint of Playboy when there are no other viewpoints? It certainly helps promote the interests of Playboy and all those whose interests are aligned with Playboy. But what encyclopedic value are we providing? --Ronz (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Playmates unquestionably pass WP:LISTN as a group. The splitting of the lists into year is just for convenience sake and doesn't change that analysis (and if it somehow did, then it would be easily avoided by merging all the yearly lists into one massive list so as to make it one group of all Playmates, so asking whether "2014 Playmates" passes LISTN independently of Playmates as a whole is not a fruitful or meaningful approach). On "viewpoint," I don't see how that's involved at all if we're not repeating POV puffery (such as "Playboy says Miss March is the sexiest Brunette in the Four Corners region"); it's the same as when we rely on primary sources in other contexts for a basic description, such as lists of TV episodes. postdlf (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that Playmates pass WP:LISTN, though I don't know what encyclopedic value they provide, especially when there are so very many different lists.

  It may not be blatant puffery, but it is Playboy's viewpoint.

  We've some policies about the use of primary sources, and they say in general that articles sourced only with such sources aren't encyclopedic. They are much more restrictive when it comes to BLPs. --Ronz (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's the problem: if it is encyclopedic to list them from 1953 to some unspecified year, but not necessarily after that unspecified year, how do we determine what year is the dividing line? Beyond that, I still have no clue what you see as a "viewpoint" here, and you continue to WP:VAGUEWAVE to BLP without rhyme or reason. Just because content is about living people does not make it easier to delete, and here the primary source issue is irrelevant to BLP concerns given that the material is all factual, not contentious, and (just as it would be if the primary source were self-published by the subject) the subjects' involvement with the primary source here is by their consent and own initiative. It would be like claiming that the birthplace of an American Idol contestant raised a BLP "concern" just because it was sourced to the American Idol official website. Which would be nonsense. postdlf (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - I believe that the subject technically satisfies the notability guidelines of WP:LISTN, but I, like others above, cannot help but wonder about the "encyclopedic value" of such lists. Notability is only the first hurdle for inclusion of a stand-alone article in Wikipedia, and the day may come when we begin to question whether the inclusion of centerfolds and minor porn starlets based on industry insider publications should be based on an objective standard of minimum notability and/or something else. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or reduce to a true list article: Should this be listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists? As a list this article fails WP:N (the list and many individual entries), WP:LSC, and WP:LISTN. This is a Subheading-structured (stand alone) list of specific people. The creation of a list article is still subject to Wikipedia:Notability (people). "WP:LISTN states that "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". What independent (let alone reliable) sources? Has anyone seen this list; List of people in Playboy 2010–19. The section "2014" contains the names of the 2014 playmates and one of the "lists" are redundant. All of the playmate links in the list links to to other lists and not to articles. This is the circular pattern all of the list conform to. We should either have policies and guidelines to build a better encyclopedia or forget about them. Otr500 (talk)
• Added Comment: Just the idea that some argue that this list does not try to go around notability is utterly amazing. It was commented above, "There is sometimes not enough reason to justify having twelve articles for all the Playmates so a list page is the simplest way to keep all the information about the Playmates in one place without having twelve (or 12 x 60) articles created and deleted." This is a standard argument and justification for inclusion is that it is a list so contents can be allowed. If we can't create an article because of lack of notability (the reason) we create a list with the information included and justify the list? This is either a list or an article. If it is a list (as it is presented to be) then reduce it to conform to that. If it is an article (as it currently it actually is) then change the name. As a list it is redundant other than the fact it contains information on non-notable people that some editors want to keep. Otr500 (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like it or not, lists often have non-notable entries, and AFDs are routinely closed as merge and redirect to such lists as has happened with many Playmate articles (and such lists of individually non-notable entries are routinely kept at AFD). You cite to WP:LSC though without apparently reading the section right below it: WP:CSC, "common [list] selection criteria", which gives one example as "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles." So you're railing against what is common, guideline-supported, and consensus-supported practice, yet you're trying to characterize it as if it was somehow a sneaky trick. postdlf (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Seems WP:DP hasn't kept up with BLP. WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE places the burden on restoring content in BLPs to those arguing for inclusion. WP:BLPDEL clarifies this. In the specific case of this article, I'd say that arguments about the value of the information in the article fail anything like WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Of course we could push the issue by just deleting the content, but that might interfere with this AfD too much. --Ronz (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]