Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unknown Centerfold July 1970

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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unknown Centerfold July 1970

Article about an unknown and unremarkable adult model from the 70s. Article contains nothing more than the fact that she was on the cover of an issue of Penthouse magazine in 1970. Saberwyn 01:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete under WP:CSD A3 due to lack of content. It would be impossible to write a useful article under this title; if the model were identified, the article would be under her own name (either a real name or a modeling name). --Metropolitan90 02:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, we need at least a name. Gazpacho 03:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete until we have a name we can't have an article. Possible A3 speedy delete as Metropolitan90 notes due to lack of content. Capitalistroadster 03:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I think the fact that she remains "unknown" for 30+ years is quite remarkable for an industry that requires documentation of name/age and stuff just to be able to use the photograph... perhaps there is something that can be written to make it worth saving?  ALKIVAR™ 04:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • What's with all the nn 1970 Penthouse cover models coming up for AfD together? Delete this one and merge the picture and the other "nominees" in Penthouse cover models (1970). B.Wind 08:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete for lack of content. Basically this states Penthouse had a centerfold in July 1970. This fact doesn't need a separate article until we can name the woman. - Mgm|(talk) 11:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Article title should (at the very least) state which magazine the model was in. - Mgm|(talk) 11:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's nothing here. If in fact Penthouse (for some reason) featured an anonymous cover model - something I highly doubt - then this might be an OK trivia item for the magazine's main article. 23skidoo 14:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete about as vacuous as you can get. Unknown woman, known only to a "select" band of one-handed typists (and even then not by name, since they were not looking at the words as such). Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: We delete "secret societies" for being unverifiable. We will therefore delete a secret naked woman. Also, she was no more unknown at the time than any of the others, so don't think she's an intentionally unknown model (unlike Penthouse's pseudonymous model who looked very, very, very, very young but whom they swore was over 18). Geogre 18:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Alkivar is proposing that we abandon our policy of no original research. Something that is remarkable for being unknown is only acceptable here if we can cite a reliable source outside of Wikipedia remarking upon the fact that it is unknown. In other words, the fact that it is unknown must itself be known, and must be already known outside of Wikipedia, and demonstrably so. If there's a reliable source that documents the fact that the woman pictured is unknown, and documents speculation as to her identity, or research into her identity, then we can use that source. But going and researching Playboy ourselves, concluding from our research that this woman is unknown, and then documenting that novel conclusion, is original research.

    And, of course, there's the fact that such a novel conclusion is almost certainly wrong, as several editors have already pointed out. Delete. Uncle G 04:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

    • No really i'm not saying write original research here... I'm just saying IF she is really unknown, aka we REALLY cant find any proof of who she is... THEN and ONLY THEN should we have content on her. And probably in that case it belongs in the article for Penthouse anyways. Please dont put words in my mouth, yours taste bad :P  ALKIVAR™ 06:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, you really are proposing the abandonment of our policy against original research. "we REALLY cant find any proof" is original research. It's not up to us to research the identity of this woman, draw conclusions from the data that we find, and publish those conclusions here. Such research has to be done outside of Wikipedia. Please refresh your memory of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. The words in your mouth are and have been your own. If advocating original research tastes bad, don't advocate it. ☺ Uncle G 07:03, 6 December 2005 (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.