Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marliece Andrada

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 Absent stronger evidence, there is a longstanding consensus that all Playboy centerfolds are notable, given the fame of the publication both within and without its genre. No other claims have been to alter that presumption. Xoloz 14:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marliece Andrada

Marliece Andrada (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

To delete all Playboy Magazine Covers and all articles where the model's only claim on "Notability" is that she appeared as a playmate once on Playboy. See today's discussion, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Playboy_Magazine_Covers.

Other articles to be deleted are in Category:Playboy magazine covers

Tovojolo 21:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Playboy centerfolds are inherently notable per WP:PORNBIO. If you disagree with this, I suggest that you address it by discussing the guideline itself. As far as the images go, please take them to IFD rather than trying to include them in this AFD. If you meant to nominate the image for deletion (Image:Playboy March 1998.jpg) please withdraw this nomination and create a new IFD in it's place, or possibly just tag it as non-free use disputed. If you would like help/instructions with doing this, please respond here and I or someone else should be happy to help. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per After Midnight. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment are these pornstars? I dont think PORNBIO applies to models Corpx 05:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Good point. In my mind: yes, since most people would consider Playboy pornography (it is age restricted, afterall), hence the people who appear in it would be pornstars. That said, it's not really the same thing as appearing in a hardcore video or some such. --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Being the centerfold is covered in criteria #1 of PORNBIO. Also, there is a bit more discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors)#Hustler Honey should not be sufficient for notability. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. There has already been plenty of clearing out of Playboy wankcruft, with the deletion of all the Cybergirls of the Week and cover models from Playboy ancillary publications. I don't think it needs to be extended to the Playmates, and if a new precedent is to be set, I think the debate needs to be more widely publicized than this relatively obscure AFD. With all due respect to the discussion on AN/I, I don't think Theresa Knott is fully equipped to appreciate the notability of Playboy Playmates. Furthermore, these days Playmates also usually appear in other Playboy media, and in this particular case, she had a part on Baywatch as well. --Groggy Dice T | C 20:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep only because of the appearance in Gex 3. I don't believe PORNBIO applies to models who are not pornstars. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:45, 4 September 2007 (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.