Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tracy Tweed

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. — Scientizzle 14:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Tweed

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable, even if your sister was an actually notable playmate. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 01:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a Playmate, but a Playboy model and a Playmate's sister. Between her Playboy work, her low-grade movie career, and her reality TV appearances, I think the GNG is met, even if it is met is a Kardashian-oid way. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly do you call her "movie career"? --Damiens.rf 03:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Hullaballoo, Johnny Mnemonic was a major motion picture. Monty₈₄₅ 03:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Playing a minor appearance in a notable major motion picture does not make you notable. And what Hullaballoo calls her movie career is just minor roles on 4 movies (Johnny Mnemonic being apparently the only notable title) and 3 appearances on 3 distinct tv series episodes, one of them playing the character Girl #2. Does this makes for notability? --Damiens.rf 12:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage found on Google News. Epbr123 (talk) 10:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the articles I see are actually mentioning her on passage when talking about her notable sister Shannon Tweed and her sister's husband Gene Simmons. Have you've run across some non-trivial coverage about the girl herself? --Damiens.rf 12:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has had enough media coverage to be notable.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.