Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

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. Overall consensus herein is for article retention. Of note is that the article has been heavily sourced compared to the time it was nominated for deletion, at which time it was unsourced. Discussion regarding the article can always continue on its talk page. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 05:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Playboy Playmates of 2014[edit]

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]
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]
  • Keep. Comment (maybe a weak keep).[changed to full keep for reasons given throughout this discussion. postdlf (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)] 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.[reply]

    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]
    Please WP:FOC. I hope I've made a clearer case below [1]. --Ronz (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm focusing on the content of your arguments. That's what we do at AFD. If you don't want your arguments criticized, then this isn't the forum for you. And your comment below doesn't make a case at all, let alone a "clearer" one. postdlf (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "then this isn't the forum for you" Sorry to have upset you so that you're now over the line into WP:BATTLE. Please stop. Cooperate. Ask questions and try to understand others. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 21 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]
    • You don't get to delete something just because you've exclaimed "BLP!" BLPREQUESTRESTORE has no applicability here as we're not taking about deletions pursuant to a subject's request. BLPDEL makes clear that it is only applicable to content that is noncompliant, about which there is not a consensus here, let alone a substantive argument that it isn't compliant. And consistent with WP:PRESERVE, that the content "should be improved and rectified" if possible, though that presumes there is a substantive issue of noncompliance to rectify in the first place. postdlf (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess we're having trouble communicating. I hope that the editing, edit summaries, and talk page comments will help clarify the problems that need to be overcome. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Postdlf, do not characterize my comments in the way you did. Slapping labels and using unfounded accusations, that are not conducive to a productive discussion, is not cool. I have pointed out what I see. I asked a question (the ? mark) "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?" and you affirmed this with "These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles", Your reasoning is not the intended purpose of list articles. Policies, guidelines, and even essays, are suppose to be used together and if there is doubt, or some conflict, it is be better to swing to the side of preserving the integrity of Wikipedia.
Read even farther below WP:CSC. WP:LISTPEOPLE (about people) includes a notability requirement, with an exception if famous for a specific event and I am sure a Playmate does not qualify on that count. It also states that inclusion depends on "...if all the following requirements are met.". If a person in a list does not have a Wikipedia article about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to: a) establish their membership in the list's group; and b) to establish their notability on either WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO1E", and "The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources.". If we are getting into the BLP or bio aspect of individual listings within the lists then we can add that also as the above "does" provide a criteria for individual entries of persons. I think it is sad that these entries have been allowed to remain this long. As far as "noncompliant" there is no question that bio entries with only a primary source should not be allowed and some of these articles have no references, are orphans, listing only external links as a source, and some like (List of Playboy Playmates of 1984) have like 24 listings in 12 "separate" external links sections. Because those have been allowed to remain thus far does not diminish that an article (even a list article) can not have but one external links section. Somehow many of these external link sections, being the only source in many cases, and used as a source, has escaped corrections. It is not relevant now that it is brought to light that these things need fixing and it is the same with this list article. I have noticed that some corrections have been implemented, and that links to article titles that are only redirects are also being worked on. If these "lists" that have unsourced BLP article content are corrected, as well as the hundreds of other violations in over 700 articles, then we will have a start but we have to start somewhere. This will of course include the Playboy templates that have links to names that only go to redirects back to lists. Some names on this list are also included in List of Playboy Playmates of the Year. Look at the individual listings in the template on this article. All twelve of them link back to this very same article as many do. List of Playboy Playmates of 1985 has 9 of the 12 so there is no doubt this article (as well as many others) need so much work. People may like making articles but there is still (until it changes) policies and guidelines that do have consensus to be followed. Sourcing is a major concern. Articles that do not have reliable secondary sources do not belong on Wikipedia and these circular "list" articles that are also redundant, are among them. Again, make it a list, source it (you can help) and bring it into compliance concerning the other violations per policy, or delete it. Otr500 (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to incorrectly assert, as has Ronz above, that this information is unsourced, when it's in fact sourced from the magazine itself. The content presently in this list is the same that has been given in every Playmate's profile in the published magazine (and apparently on their official website now) for much if not all of Playboy's history. If and/or when any additional content is added that goes beyond that info, then additional sources would be a reasonable expectation. Please see my above responses to Ronz for more on why BLP just doesn't provide a deletion argument here.

I'm also confused by your insistence that "this isn't a list", unless you just mean it's not merely a list of unannotated names, but that's not a meaningful distinction. If you're fine with listing the names at all then that rather undercuts your argument (to the extent I understand your comment above at all) that we should never list people who don't merit individual articles. Typically we don't, because most lists of people are such things as alumni lists, lists of people by occupation, etc., which are meant only to index articles (which is why the first link under the WP:LISTPEOPLE header is to an essay about including non-notable people in alumni lists). But this is not that kind of list; it's instead more comparable to the semi-finalists lists in the American Idol seasons, where none of them may have any fame outside of that one context and the media franchise of which they were a part (effectively their "employer" in this context) has given these very basic bio facts about them. I suspect that if these lists were compressed into a table format (using headers for each name just makes the lists seem more empty) and perhaps merged into lists by decade (so long as the formatting could handle expansion for each entry when there was something more substantive to say), that they would have less objections even though the same uncontentious information was given (name, basic physical stats, photographer, etc.). postdlf (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and trimmed the list as described, per the rationale I've already given and the additional comments on the article talk page.
If there are any arguments that the material beyond the names meets BLP somehow, they need to be made now. --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I see some strong similarities in Postdlf's comments about the AI13 semi-finalists and what I was going to propose here. I'm going to wait until we have some of the confusion here resolved first. --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't do this again while the AFD is pending; it is WP:POINTy and disruptive to blank content based on your nomination alone, particularly after you've already met with disagreement. I have responded at length on your unelaborated BLP opinion; you have yet to make an actual, substantive argument as to why it's not compliant. I'm without any clue as to how birthplace or height, for example, when given by a notable mass media entity on behalf of the models they hire, somehow could be contentious or defamatory so as not to comply with BLP. Let alone photography credits, which you also blanked. postdlf (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm following BLP, rather than dismissing all BLP concerns outright. I've started a discussion. Please participate in it, noting that the burden is on those arguing for inclusion. I'm trying to work cooperatively and with the assumption of good faith by all despite the repeated WP:FOC and WP:BATTLE problems here. I'd already stated that I'd rather not take this route, but it seems we'll never get any substantial arguments for inclusion otherwise. The discussions' comparison to lists of spelling bee winners is a substantial improvement. --Ronz (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to discuss, then start by addressing my arguments in full rather than edit warring to blank an article you want deleted while the deletion discussion is still pending and there is far from a consensus that it violates BLP or anything else. I'm at a loss as to why you think that's appropriate to do. You have yet to articulate a BLP concern, instead of merely repeating the acronym over and over as if it's an incantation. My last observation about why you think your blanking was justified was that "I'm without any clue as to how birthplace or height, for example, when given by a notable mass media entity on behalf of the models they hire, somehow could be contentious or defamatory so as not to comply with BLP. Let alone photography credits, which you also blanked." Can you respond to those comments, or any of the others above I've made as to why BLP isn't a legitimate concern here?

I keep criticizing your comments because 1) this is the forum in which we discuss rationales for deletion, 2) it's your nomination, and 3) you keep repeating weak arguments in support of it that are basically unelaborated opinions and WP:VAGUEWAVEs despite repeated responses urging you to actually develop a substantive rationale. It is honestly weasely for you to keep throwing WP:FOC out in lieu of responding to my specific points, as if that somehow lets you escape from having to make a rebuttal or actually step up and defend your assertions. postdlf (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you still are having such difficulties understanding my perspective, perhaps you can elaborate on yours. From my perspective, they are simply a dismissal of BLP in total, and that you like the information therefore it should stay. --Ronz (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, I've trimmed back the January section of the article to something that I think might be acceptable to retain, in an effort to clarify the BLP concerns and to get editors to address them (poor sources, undue weight, material sourced without independent sources, mention of non-notable persons, redundancy, promotion of Playboy and its viewpoint, etc.) --Ronz (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your removal of the measurements because, inter alia, 1) this is given for each Playmate as part of their centerfold in the magazine itself, 2) Playboy centerfolds are known for giving these stats for their models and so it's arguably a relevant and even defining part of the topic, hardly "undue", and 3) there's no reasonable argument that Playboy is not a reliable source for its own content and for statements made therein about the models it hires. I also restored the photographer credit because there's no requirement that such credits be limited to notable people; lists of TV episodes, for example, will identify directors and writers regardless of whether they merit their own articles. Who photographed a model in a Playboy feature is of equal relevance to this subject. Though I appreciate that you've refrained from flat out blanking the list again (albeit only after being repeatedly reverted and admonished by multiple editors), you're still editing based on the presumption that your nomination is correct (i.e., what you find "acceptable to retain"), which is exactly what this AFD is to decide. postdlf (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinions on the matter. Do take them up on the article talk page and attempt to build consensus for them. --Ronz (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am personally not a fan of Playboy content, but those kind of considerations are not relevant to these kind of discussions since Wikipedia is not censored. Also, arguments that basically state that a subject "just isn't encyclopedic" are invalid in these types of discussion. The existence of other Wikipedia articles that may or may not need some cleanup is also not relevant to this discussion as AfD is not cleanup. I understand that the nominator of this AfD has apparently been "concerned" about the inclusion of these kind of lists on Wikipedia for quite some time but that isn't relevant to this discussion either.
I'm not interested in repeating my comments here except to note that recent editing behavior by the AfD nominator in the article in question here has been highly disruptive and not at all in compliance with any Wikipedia guideline that I'm aware of at this time. Guy1890 (talk) 07:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am NOT a deletionist, have NOT mentioned any concerns that I don't like Playboy or related articles, and unlike some others commenting here I have not edited the article yet or even related ones. I got involved because this article has severe problems NOT because I don't like it or any related articles so using a smoke screen that it is allowed because Wikipedia is not censored is moot on my part. This article, unlike the two examples above, are not in the same ball park. I like both of those lists because they point to other articles and are really referenced not just a lists that use redirects to other lists. The very same essay used to promote that AfD is not a cleanup also has a whole section The Case for Discussion driving Cleanup that includes "Nominating for discussion brings the page to the attention of multiple editors and encourages them to put aside the procrastination blinders and fix the issue with the article with the specter of a deadline. Some will point to this essay as a reason to not nominate and discuss, but if a page is failing Wikipedia policy it should be discussed and fixed.". An article (and list) does not have a place on Wikipedia when it is redundant and this circular attempt at a list is. I have shown that the information used in this article is not for the purpose of being a list but an article about Playboy Playmates that are sourced with only the information from Playboy so are not as stated "and the items on this list here are all supported by reliable sources". Is it a parking place to advance a way around Wikipedia policies and guidelines? I think so. Does Wikipedia need lists of list that circle back to lists, NO. Does it need a list article that is used as a way to promote Playboy, no. Where are the secondary supporting sources? Either Playboy or mirror Playboy sites does not satisfy Wikipedia Policy on reliable sources and this is well known. "If" the "list" can not be fixed, as it appears from arguments, then why actually have it except to promote Playboy? If that is not the intent then address some of my TOTALLY valid concerns above. People that "extensively" edit this article should see it has problems and help improve it instead of just arguing for keep because it is good or what ever. Why not improve Wikipedia? Is that not a goal? Otr500 (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are no more valid problems (let alone "severe problems") with the article in question here. Again, this is not the forum to discuss the content or quality of "other articles". The models on the list in question here have all appeared recently in Playboy. Using information from Playboy about them in an article on Wikipedia is not at all controversial. The current sources in the article in question here are not all from Playboy either. "Where are the secondary supporting sources?" They are now in the article...some 18 or so of them at this point. I have never previously edited the article in question here before July 21st, and I have not previously contributed much to Playboy-related articles in the past because of my personal dislike for Playboy. However, I dare say that this article here has been improved by my (and others) recent edits. Stop whining & complaining about articles and start editing & improving some articles my misguided friend. Guy1890 (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While the work on improving the article is helpful, it seems that there are valid problems and that some editors would rather treat the dispute as a personal squabble than work collaboratively. --Ronz (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Baloney...there are exactly zero "valid problems" in the article in question here. Continue down your present path of obvious edit warring to achieve your own personal goal of deleting content from this article at your own risk. You have been duly warned. Guy1890 (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And you have an admin giving telling you to ignore me and start an ANI dispute [2]. Seems nonconstructive... --Ronz (talk) 00:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors (both here & on the article in question's talk page) have been extremely forgiving of your behavior for quite a while now "Ronz", but it's obvious at this late date that you're not interested in anything resembling a real policy or article content discussion, which is textbook disruptive behavior. I was personally already thinking of taking your editing behavior to AN/I after the close of this AfD...even though I personally loathe the "drama boards" myself. Your behavior during this incident has been completely & totally unacceptable, and I think we're done debating it here. Your recent actions speak for themselves. Guy1890 (talk) 00:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and further remove the references-related tag stating that there needs to be more sourcing provided, as everything seems good. I am referring to this recent version of the article, which was last edited by postdlf. I see no BLP or other problems with the article at all, much less specifically with wikipedia-notability of the topic (the subject of this AFD). From what I gather from discussion above, the article has been improved during this discussion. Also I gather that having a list-article like this serves a good purpose in obviating separate articles about each model appearing in the magazine. Seems like this should be ready to be closed as obvious, and that would help put an end to bickering going on. --doncram 00:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as extremely notable passing GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No valid arguments for deletion were raised, just a bunch of pointy fuss, and actions like these are blatantly disruptive (and probably topic-ban worthy). Cavarrone 05:47, 23 July 2014 (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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_2014