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. RL0919 (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Playboy Interviews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This list is very incomplete, and only includes interview subjects for some years in the twentieth century, and none in the twenty-first century. The only sources are the Playboy magazine archives in which the interview appeared, so that there is no independent sourcing to establish list notability.

• Draftify as nominator. This might be a useful list article when completed. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been expanded and is in the process of being completed. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 07:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Popular culture, and United States of America. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page is under construction and other editors are welcome to help complete the list. The main Playboy article frames the value of the interview to the success of the magazine. The Playboy interview is known as one of the most thorough features delving into celebrity, politics, sports, and current affairs. Over the next few days, the list will be completed and additional sources will be added for notable interviews which have been quoted in other media. Let's give this some time to be built before deletion. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, unless I am mistaken, you cast another !vote at the bottom of the page. Consider "unbolding" one of your "Keep", please, as you can't do that. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Got it. - Thanks. I interpreted the relisting as a division point. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 12:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The table is already well populated considering the task at hand and would only improve given more time to add content and additional references. The sources only being Playboy magazine archives in which the interview appeared makes good sense as the way to develop this article currently. Rockycape (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Incomplete is never a valid reason for deletion. Notability is though. I see The Rolling Stone Interview that mentions why the interview section is notable, then links to some interviews. Doesn't list all of them, which is odd, no selection criteria listed. Anyway, nothing else at Category:Interviews is like this. Are we going to list every magazine there is, and all the famous people they interviewed? Dream Focus 13:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In the case of this magazine's interviews, several sources point out that the magazine's body of work has had the same cultural impact. Ref: (1) (2) (3). Other sources are cited in the article. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 07:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I can see the great amount of work that @GimmeChoco44 has been doing. Dont see anuthing wrong here in temrs of notability either. Vorann Gencov (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:HARDWORK applies. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  “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” – as presented here [1] and here [2]. Meets WP:CSC and WP:LSC. I think we should keep the list as it gives a broader understanding of the topic. Repurpose is also okay for me. Vorann Gencov (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed. Strong keep; HEY, WP:NLIST applies. If we start deleting incomplete lists or articles, then the whole thing can go straight to the bin.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is an insignificant list that doesn't merit an article but is probably a violation of WP:PROMO. desmay (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Disagree with "insignificant" -- the influence of the "Playboy interview" is documented by many sources (some are cited in the list article). In addition to the comprehensive content of the interviews, the breadth of subjects (world leaders, entertainers, businessmen, athletes) is often cited as a benchmark for periodical journalism, and the list provides an overview without undue burden on the main Playboy article. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unnecessary database. Some of these interviews didn't even happen and were mere copy-paste job. Azuredivay (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That is a wild and unsupported claim. Not only did these interviews happen, but the proof exists in both printed and digital sources, and the interviews are referenced by major sources such as Los Angeles Times and Associated Press. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Another unnecessary list that serves nobody but the most ardent fans. Lists like this needs to be purged off the already bloated Wikipedia site to keep it from becoming the poor Fandom imitation it already is. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NLIST is the focus of this discussion. Please check the update page content to see the multiple citations which fulfill this criteria. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• General comment: Since the essay about arguments to avoid was already cited, I will mention 2 other sections: Wikipedia:UNNECESSARY and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Most opinions are more or less respectable but guidelines should prevail and WP:NLIST is the applicable guideline.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please focus on whether the article meets WP:NLIST.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It seems clear to me that the subject has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources which is all that WP:NLIST requires. Refering to the nomination: one might at first glance get the impression that it's all primary sourcing, but once you actually look at it, that isn't true at all. I think this issue could be sovled by either using WP:REFGROUP or this being one of those few edge cases where ext links are prefered in the article body. -- D'n'B-t -- 14:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We've had inclusionists push in that we need to include every single episode of a television talk show's run (see The Ellen DeGeneres Show#Episodes, whose reads are in the >800 views range each; who is still actively reading these articles three years after it ended?), and we should not be extending that consensus to magazine interviews. We should not be doing a job a company should be doing for themselves. Nate • (chatter) 23:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the difference between this list and the Ellen show is clear when looking at the amount of references by major media to the importance of the Playboy interview in popular culture. (Ex: Time, Billboard, Variety, CNN, among others) GimmeChoco44 (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There are several citations cited in this article which support the notability of the Playboy interview. More examples will be added by other editors as the article continues to grow. The article fulfills the requirements of WP:NLIST in that it "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", with examples from publications such as AP News, Los Angeles Times, Billboard, Slate, CNN, and multiple others. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It does meet the requirements, GimmeChoco44's references found prove that. Dream Focus 06:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Moreover, 114 revisions since 2024-07-21 -- we haven't even let the water fill in yet, we are throwing a baby out of an empty bathtub. jp×g🗯️ 07:29, 1 August 2024 (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.