Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dalene Kurtis

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep.

[edit] Dalene Kurtis

Playboy Playmate of the year with no other claim to notability. The crude anatomical descriptions can be edited, of course, but is she notable? --BM 02:29, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete.Mikkalai 04:15, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete.TOR 04:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• No vote: I cleaned up the article some. DCEdwards1966 06:28, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Why isn't being Playmate of the Year notable enough? P Ingerson 12:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Then we can make list of Playmates of the Year, and add these stubs, since I'm sure there are more out there somewhere. Delete. hfool 22:54, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your wish is my command... Dan100 10:47, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

• An obvious keep. Everyking 21:56, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, this distinction is not inherently notable. Wyss 22:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, Playboy Magazine is notable. The only notability that most of the young women who pose for them have is that they are in the top couple of percent in looks; and they are willing to be photographed in the nude for payment and to have the pictures published. Neither of which makes them especially notable. Some of them manage to turn their Playboy exposure into successful modeling/acting careers, in which case they may become notable and merit a Wikipedia article. --BM 22:56, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - "notability" still isn't a listed reason on the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. You know, that thing you're supposed to read before nominating anything to this page. Merge and redirect to a list of playmates at most - David Gerard 23:03, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • You persist on making this comment on almost every VfD vote you comment upon. Notability is not only de facto one of the main reasons articles are deleted via this page, but as has been explained numerous times, notability is derived from the basic requirement that an article be "encyclopedic" which is most certainly mentioned in the policy as the basic principle underlying all the others, and which is also implied by several of the more specific categories under "What Wikipedia is not". --BM 00:13, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • The word "notability" isn't on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not either. A lack of notability is a possible indicator of other problems, but you've named those neither in your original nomination nor in your response. I can only conclude you don't have any reasons that actually accord with policy - David Gerard 09:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • False, if you are going to accuse people of not having it read it, you should read it yourself first. Paragraph 17. "The people who have biographies here should be important or otherwise notable for some reason." --BM 17:34, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • And if notability is a "proper reason" for including a biographical article or not, certainly the same standard can be applied to other topics? Or do we have different standards of inclusion for different types of article? Elf-friend 10:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • The fact she was, above all others, named PLAYMATE OF THE YEAR firmly establishes notability. —RaD Man (talk) 10:20, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • Thank you, RaD Man. I don't set the same standard of notability as you do, but I certainly can deal with the idea that people might differ. What I can't deal with the idea that there is no such thing as notability, or that there is some algorithmic way to decide what belongs in Wikipedia that is free from the exercise of human judgement and community consensus. You have made a clear statement of a well-defined criterion which provides a reasonable upper bound on the number of such biographies (approximately fifty per sufficiently-notable skin magazine). Dpbsmith (talk) 11:40, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • 'Notability' is referred to on the Deletion policy page as 'encyclopediac', which links to Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not. However this particular article is clear notable enough under the terms of that page for this to stay. Dan100 10:47, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless a GFDL image can be procured. The only notable thing about a Playmate is the ability of photographers and retouchers to use them as sources of images which inspire erotic reveries. Without an image, all that is left is a meaningless advertisement for Playboy. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:53, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral, leaning toward delete because of the very real possibility of this becoming orphaned. I think the info is better served by being a part of a total list of Playmates of the Year. There isn't much here beyond what Geogre frequently refers to as a "predicate nominative." In other words, anyone searching for info on this woman already knows these basics. - Lucky 6.9 00:16, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Elf-friend 08:31, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete and move on. Unless she has any other merit than having been featured in Playboy she does not deserve an article. Move along, now. --Phils 19:17, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: random nudie models aren't notable, but Playboy Playmates of the Year are. -Sean Curtin 01:15, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Extremely obvious keep. Come on now. —RaD Man (talk) 10:18, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Extremely obvious delete, and I wish people would address the articles, and not the nominations or nominators. Is this woman known for something other than being a Playmate? If no, then she should be mentioned in an article on Playmate of the Year or a List of... article. If she is known as a person independently and just, as one part of her glorious and notable life, was a Playmate, then she needs an article on her own. Geogre 13:55, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - Dalene is indeed a notable celebrity. -- Judson 22:11, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, with 103,000 google hits, this woman is indeed a celebrity. -- Crevaner 00:08, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Being POTY is itself criteria for an article. -- Old Right 00:29, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Acting sysop: please note similarity in user pages and voting histories for Crevaner and Old Right. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:45, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, it needs obvious expansion but Playmate of the Year makes it imo notable. Megan1967 02:11, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth and expansion. GRider\^talk 18:17, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Is that like tumescence?
• LOL! Only when referring to the surgical alterations! Keep new stub and slap a bio-stub header on it. - Lucky 6.9 01:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this pr0ncruft. Agreed w/ Geogre. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• An ordinary playmate would be hard to decide, but playmate of the year? Keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:04, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious keep for notability reasons, not just because there's no grounds for deletion either. Some people really need to take time out to read the policy pages. Dan100 10:41, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Notable for people with a certain set of interests, and as such as worthy of being here as various minor league baseball players, pokemon characters, or 1920s record labels if someone cares to write article on. -- Infrogmation 19:11, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Jasoncart 20:25, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Playmate of the Year is sufficiently notable. Dbenbenn 18:53, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.