Talk:List of Playboy Playmates of 1992

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 August 2021. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Pornography Low‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Stephanie Adams

Why is it that the Stephanie Adams section has almost nothing there, yet the other playmates have information about them and they are almost all unsourced? 12.184.15.242 (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide specifics about what is unsourced and those items can be removed as well. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting, but at least some of what the IP is introducing did exist at Adams' own article before it was deleted. The ref used there was Diane Wilde, "Cover to Cover", She Magazine, September, 2003, p. 16., if anyone is interested in checking to see if it can be used. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this type of information notable enough to be included in a list article? Fasttimes68 (talk) 23:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a great deal of controversy over the assertion and the source. It's better left out of the list article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - we've had a lot of issues with Stephanie Adams' article over years. For now, let's leave her section as a stub is a deliberate attempt to try and avoid those problems from repeating. Tabercil (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting this article (not the talk) for ip users will go a long way into making everyone's life easier. I opened a case. Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This biography should be phrased consistently with other ones on here and might be expanded once I and a few others get a chance to look up reliably sourced links for additional information. There are lots of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.42.116 (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea. I suggest that you and "a few others" each sign up for thier own individual account. Pages sometimes get semi-protected from ip accounts, so having your own auto-confirmed account will help you and your colleagues avoid that problem. Also, if you and your colleagues plan on contributing to Wikipedia you should be aware that the project policy generally requires that each editor have their own account. Please see WP:SOCK for more information, or ask here if you are unsure. Fasttimes68 (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The information you added was not sourced at all, and I reverted it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it was unsourced. A lot of other entries on this page are also unsourced for the same exact fact (Playboy Video) If I find some time later I will try and clean those up as well. Unless someone else beats me to it of course. Fasttimes68 (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fasttimes68, as I (and others) have suggested before, please step away from this article. Your off-wiki dispute with Stephanie Adams is interfering with maintaining a neutral point of view in this article. The information added is completely uncontroversial and is already included in almost every other entry here. There is already a link to Adams' IMDB entry which is sufficient to verify that she was included in several Playboy videos. There is no need to add a redundant link to IMDB to source that. I am restoring the information and will not be pleased if someone reverts it again. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the majority of others see no problem with my edits. And kindly don't call me a dick ever again. Fasttimes68 (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Easy folks, let's be civil about this okay? And regarding adding additional information to Stephanie's entry, I'd want to take a hard look at what's being proposed before it's added. The last thing any of us wants to have occur is the contentiousness that occured with Stephanie's article reoccur here. Tabercil (talk) 04:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to reduce the contentiousness there are two steps to take: discourage editors with a conflict of interest from editing here, and treat all entries in this list equally. Having Fasttimes68 editing the article and arguing on this talk page is not helpful. Having one set of rules for Adams' entry and another for every other entry is not helpful. The info added by an IP -- even if that IP is Adams or her representatives -- is almost word for word the same as already exists in most other entries. The obvious source to confirm video appearances is IMDB, which is already linked in each entry. If it is necessary to specify the number of Playboy videos Adams appears in, please do so for all entries. Doing anything else is taking a side in this dispute and likely to prolong, rather the end, the dispute. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with discussing changes here first. In fact I never made a single change since Tabercil made this request. What is not helpful is Delicious carbuncle being incivil and making distortions about other users. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Step away. Your presence at this page is most unhelpful. That there is no policy that forces users with off-wiki grudges not to edit the relevant Wikipedia articles is an oversight, and not a deliberate omission. If you have any respect for Wikipedia, or for Adams, you'll leave this article alone. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion that there is no policy due to "oversight" flies in the face of consensus. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 06:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User Fasttimes68 calling Adams a "tw*t" on some little blog he started years ago and being upset that Wikipedia deleted some of his many edits back then because he posted something inappropriate is a serious conflict of interest: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:aOS73T80OmwJ:fasttimes68.blogspot.com/2009/01/stephanie-adams-is-twat.html+fasttimes+stephanie+adams+is+a+twat&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ju4on (talk • contribs) 20:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adams is an author now, as another playmate or two's biography states for them on this page, so why isn't her being an author mentioned here? Of the 24 books she wrote, here are the ones still listed on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_tc_2_0?rh=i%3Astripbooks%2Ck%3AStephanie+Adams&keywords=Stephanie+Adams&ie=UTF8&qid=1314877935&sr=1-2-ent&field-contributor_id=B002HU467Y

As far as someone's request to see her prior articles, here's an early version: http://web.archive.org/web/20051105221411/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Adams

And here's a later one: http://web.archive.org/web/20110301055229/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Adams

This was the last edit according to Facebook's account of Wikipedia: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stephanie-Adams/108565435834571

I silently followed this page for years and noticed that IP User 69.143.17.59 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:69.143.17.59 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.143.17.59)and User Fasttimes68 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fasttimes68) are sockpuppets. User Hoary is a friend who also obstructed the article and made improper comments about the subject for over five years (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stephanie_Adams_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=446787762). Both should be banned from Wikipedia. You come to your own conclusions about the content in the article, but much of it was sourced, yet still removed by those who had a conflict of interest. Ju4on (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make accusations like this without (1) doing it in the right forum and (2) substantiating them. If you want to accuse editors of sockpuppetry, do so at WP:SPI. If you want to request a ban of Hoary, do so at WP:ANI, but be prepared to back up your charges.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He needs to be reported again and banned entirely from Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive717#User:Fasttimes68_topic_ban_proposal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive93#Fasttimes68_reported_by_Therefore_.28Result:_24hr_block_.29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.68.72 (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Report him yourself. Watch your toes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.223.84 (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Her initial Playboy appearance was almost 20 years ago. She's been an author for over 8 years. Someone forgot to add it. Some sources:

http://www.publishingtriangle.org/goddessy.asp

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2010/05/former_playmate_stephanie_adam.html?mobRedir=false

http://www.amazon.com/Stephanie-Adams/e/B002HU467Y

http://www.great-quotes.com/quotes/author/Stephanie/Adams

http://people.famouswhy.com/stephanie_adams/

http://www.stephanieadams.com/StephanieAdams.htm

http://astroqueer.tripod.com/lesbian-stars/

Ju4on (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency

I added playmate career info in just a few words, to be consistent with the other playmates. I also changed a playmate infobox because it was the only one that read something like "Playboy centerfold appearance" and didn't need to because everyone else who is not a Playmate of the Year reads "Personal details" instead. 108.41.19.225 (talk) 11:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Adams (January 2014)

Unless nobody object in the next week, would the first editor who comes along after January 18th add

to List of Playboy Playmates of 1992#November? Thanks.

I'm mentioning this here because of an HTML comment in that section specifically requesting that I do so. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Marie Sloan

according to what seems to be the obituary-legacy page for her, she was born in Orange County and died in Las Vegas; I can find no obviously reliable source on her cause of death (quite a few that claim to be and pass on what seems to be unsourced information?..., which is not the same thing). Schissel | Sound the Note! 02:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]