Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabrielle Copeland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Delete, Keep, Delete, No consensus, Delete ~ trialsanderrors 06:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gabrielle Copeland

Gabrielle Copeland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable, fails WP:BIO Otto4711 16:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Also nominated:


  • Comment: I'll agree with you in that, for most of the ladies you listed, the articles as they stand right now do not state why they are notable. The only exception I believe could be Tammy Plante, as I think her role in the Virtual Bartender, combined with her Playboy appearances, just might be enough to render her notable. However, I think you should be putting each girl up in her own individual AFD, and as a result, I'm not casting a vote at this time. Tabercil 22:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete on Gabrielle Copeland - the other articles need their own delete pages.--Hatch68 22:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom except Tammy Plante; posing nude for any of the multitudes of Playboy publications does not bestow notability (and Plante is the only one to have accomplished something more). Being the centerfold brings notability, but that's because those women are the central focus of an entire issue, the role of the centerfold and of Playboy Playmates has immense pop culture significance, and the magazine focuses on the identity of the Playmates (and on remembering their identity even years later) in a manner not true of the legions of comparably anonymous women who pose for the "special editions." Postdlf 23:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Make that "Delete all per nom except for Plante and Hammer," about whom I'm somewhere between a "neutral" and a "weak keep." Postdlf 15:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 01:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Relevant notability criteria are at WP:PORNBIO.. Looks to me like they all meet it, but I may be misinterpreting what "Coed of the Month" means. —Cuiviénen 01:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • There's no article to explain "Coed of the Month" but based on the Coed of the Week category description it appears to me that it doesn't qualify as an "award" as defined by the WP:PORNBIO criteria. It seems more like a bunch of women are presented each week on the Playboy Cyber Club website and the users pick one for the week and then the month. Someone with more familiarity than I with the website may have more insight but I don't believe that being named Coed of the Week or Month establishes notability in and of itself. Otto4711 05:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral (at a loss!) - Yes the articles do seem to fail WP:BIO, but as Cuivienen pointed out, they do meet WP:PORNBIO. So I'm at a loss as what to do, as they meet, but don't meet the rules... Thoughts anyone? Spawn Man 02:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Jaime Hammer, neutral on the others. Hammer has appeared on the cover (either alone or as one of three models) of Playboy Special Editions magazines three times between 2004 and 2006. All three times she was identified by name (full name twice, first name once) on the cover itself. This implies that she has some name recognition and celebrity at least within the context of the Playboy magazine readership, as opposed to being some fly-by-night model who is never heard from again. Although she is not an actress or television personality, her repeated appearances on magazine covers should be considered "multiple features in popular culture publications" which would qualify an actress for an article under WP:BIO. The other four models may also warrant articles but I don't have sufficient evidence to make a case for them. --Metropolitan90 05:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Copeland, Leigh, and Thornton, Keep Hammer and Plante. I was convinced by Hammer's multiple covers and by Plante's appearances for beer.com, etc. The others seem pretty minor. --Brianyoumans 05:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all except Jaime Hammer and Tammy Plante. Gotta love the infoboxes - measurements and the works. :| Orderinchaos78 05:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all except Jaime Hammer and Tammy Plante. A definite keep on Hammer, but a very weak keap on plante, as I'm unsure that the ad she appeared in is good enough to warrant an article for her (and not just include her as a subsection of the article about the ad campaign) Bjelleklang - talk 13:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Hammer per 18 appearances in a national magazine of wide circulation, including 2 covers. That is greater notabiility than 90% of the bio articles of living persons. Delete the rest.Edison 17:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Note: when you nominate a large number of different articles, you make the task for the closing admin difficult. Edison 17:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If that's such a problem then there probably shouldn't be a procedure for nominatingmultiple articles. These were all nominated together because they're the contents of a particular nn category. Otto4711 16:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Hammer; Delete rest per Edison. Irk(talk) 05:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all. Tulkolahten 13:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Gabrielle Copeland with Sikeston, Missouri. -THB 20:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • *scratches head* Why merge? Tabercil 01:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
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.