Talk:List of Playboy Playmates of 1995

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

No consensus, 4 August 2021, see discussion.
keep, 8 February 2017, see discussion.

Pornography Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-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

Lists

	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.

External links in the Playboy Lists

There has been recent action to delete external links to the Playboy Wiki in these lists.
If you are interested, either for or against, there is a discussion about it here: Noticeboard for External links. Wikilister (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This Page

nothing at all is noteworthy about this page, nor are there any Wikipedia approved sources for this page. Lets get this page down. -Richterer11111 (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be removed. -Amiryucky (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As debate continues surrounding if page is noteworthy, in meantime will edit for accuracy. The current list has no accurate sources, hence edited it. -Richterer11111 (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't attempt to blank large portions of pages that you don't like while they are at AfD...that's considered at least borderline disruptive behavior. Thank you. Guy1890 (talk) 06:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are no real sources for the living people you are mentioning in this biography. IF some of them have information leave it. Also unclear why the information on Mel Gibson interview was removed. Richterer11111 (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I undid the revision of latest material: diff. These are not suitable sources for BLP material, AfD or not. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much and that is the right decision. Will continue to edit accordingly. These are NOT accurate Wiki sources. Richterer11111 (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tag-team deletion attempts in this article (or any other article) are not welcomed here. Once again, please stop vandalizing this article. Guy1890 (talk) 05:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLP tells us rather clearly how to manage poorly sourced info about living people. Please follow BLP and make a case for inclusion rather than claiming the removal is vandalism. --Ronz (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Playboy.com, IMDB and Adultfilmdatabase are NOT authorized sources for living people. Please follow BLP rather than force-feeding your viewpoint. Your changes are very much against consensus on this page. Richterer11111 (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Playboy.com is fine. Playboy is a reliable source - particularly when it comes to identifying people who've appeared in that very publication. JohnInDC (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look "Ronz" - you don't want a repeat of what happened during & after this old AfD that you started in 2014 for no reason. Adding yourself to the deletion tag-team is not a good way to butt in here at this late date. Guy1890 (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing an article that's about Playboy Playmates to Playboy (or to an adult film database that accurately tracks that kind of stuff) is about as obvious a reliable source as anything. IMDb is also a perfectly reliable source for its filmography information.

Trying to delete large portions of a Wikipedia page after sending that same page to AfD is disruptive behavior. I'll ask again "Richterer11111"...who are you & under what account(s) are you (or have you in the past) editing under? Guy1890 (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the sources. (I realize that we've been over this before, but I have yet to find the discussions. My apologies for the repetition. If anyone can find the past discussions, please identify them.)

IMDb is generally not a reliable source.

Can I assume that playboy.com and people.com are generally reliable for this type of info?

Anyone like to comment on adultfilmdatabase.com, ranker.com, wekinglypigs.com, christies.com, loststars.co? At a glance, I'd question them all except christies. I believe that's all the other sources. Please identify any I've missed. --Ronz (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit by K.e.coffman identifies adultfilmdatabase.com and wekinglypigs.com as not being suitable for use here. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So no one disputes that adultfilmdatabase.com and wekinglypigs.com should not be used here? --Ronz (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, especially when used to cite trivia such as the subject's bust sizes. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, and the "bust sizes" were obviously included in Playboy appearances that all of these people are known by in the first place. We're at least approaching "I didn't hear that" territory people. Guy1890 (talk) 06:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you think they are reliable sources in a BLP? --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Marie Scott

Are we good deleting her entree? Theres no approved sources? Richterer11111 (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, she like all the rest just requires a bit of legwork. See [1]. You should be spending your time compiling these sources rather than persistently trying to have sourceable entries removed. JohnInDC (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is sourceable about her page. Playboy pictorials do not make her noteworthy, and for a BLP this isn't a source. She is not noteworthy, and one naked pictorial doesn't consistite a wiki mention for a BLP. Richterer11111 (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're not making a "sourcing" argument but a notability one. If you have serious concerns on that front, take the relevant tarticles to AfD and see what the consensus is on those. Meantime your persistent removal of content is disruptive and may well wind up getting you blocked. Stop it please. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and BLP

There appear to be very clear rules regarding BLP. Why is it that people keep adding information here with sources like adultfilmdatabase or IMDB. And further why would a single pictorial make these people noteable. That said, some of them are noteable and should remain - but some shouldn't. Richterer11111 (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm (laboriously) going through the article to add links to Playboy.com, which is certainly a reliable and appropriate source for identifying people who've appeared within the pages of the magazine. It's laborious - but it's trivial, and you need to quit removing content for lack of proper sources when you yourself could undertake the simple task of tracking down those sources yourself. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asked for help at dispute resolution here

Appreciate comments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_1995 Richterer11111 (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further clear here that being a playmate alone does NOT make someone noteable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Pornographic_actors_and_models Per BLP, am deleting these entrees immediately. Richterer11111 (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. Even if none of the actors here were notable, they could still be included in this article. They could not have standalone articles of their own, but could be listed here. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Out of curiosity, why was this particular year singled out for the dispute and edit warring? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is most likely that it features a person someone knows and wants off the list. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amiryucky (talk · contribs) deleted content from List of people in Playboy 1990–99 in addition to this.

Richterer11111 (talk · contribs) deleted content from List of Playboy Playmates of 1994 and List of Playboy Playmates of 1996 as well. --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear (to more than just myself) that we've been dealing with at least a small set of sock/meatpuppeters for a while now in these type of articles. As I noted in the current AFD for this article here, "people don't just show up on Wikipedia and start AfDs on their first few edits". There's been recent edit warring in this article here as well, and I don't think that asking some of these above (obviously not new at all to Wikipedia) participants to start bundling multiple AfDs and/or start RFCs is especially productive at all at this late date. Guy1890 (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Guy1890 If you suspect socking, it would be appropriate to take this to WP:SPI. Making accusations outside of an investigation is not going to help, and can be consider uncivil. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: "Richterer11111" was recently blocked for being a sockpuppet. Guy1890 (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]