Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regina Deutinger

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. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regina Deutinger

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG,nothing in the text that shows any Wikipedia:Notability (people) Off2riorob (talk) 01:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I realize this is part of a good faith mass nomination by Off2riorob, so I am posting basically the same comment on all of them. I understand that WP:PORNBIO was changed recently via Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2010#RFC:_Every_playmate_is_notable but I don't think that outcome necessarily reflected true consensus. The bright line rule of "every playmate gets an article" was much easier to administer and reduced editor overhead time, instead of us spending lots of time deciding that some (most?) playmates get articles and a few get shuffled off into some "playmates of 200x" article. I guess we'll see, if these articles get deleted, whether they get successively recreated. (see also AfDs of 2010 playmates)----Milowent (talk) 04:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I added some 2 German references to her apparent appearance in the German playboy as the "Weisn" Playmate (which is another term for Oktoberfest, I believe)--Milowent (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete or merge to list article. Does not evidence notability as defined by substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources unrelated to the subject. Hipocrite (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The text about the Playmate that accompanies the photographs of the Playmate is the significant coverage required by GNG. This is not the same situation as a picture of a model without significant accompanying text about the model. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:GNG. Dismas|^(talk) 19:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The change in rule did not get wide consensus. It's simpler to keep them all in, than to go through and select and discuss them individually. The rationale is that this particular manner of publication is considered internationally as the standard of notability by nonspecialists. DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Maybe Wikipedia needs to revisit the rule change as per DGG's observation. --Morenooso (talk) 05:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG but more importantly the fundamental fact that Wikipedia:HOTTIE applies. --Morenooso (talk) 05:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being a Playmate is notable, whether WP:PORNBIO mentions it specifically or not. Also passes GNG through Milowent's additions. Lacking a photograph, I'll have to take Morenooso's word on the application of Wikipedia:HOTTIE here. I'll AGF this one. Dekkappai (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage found on Google isn't enough to pass GNG in my opinion. Epbr123 (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two extremely short pieces in a single publication are not sufficent to meet the significant coverage requirements of the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'll give the article the benefit of the doubt that it passes GNG when I perused the Google News hits using Google Translate. [1] This German article indicates that the model satisfies Criteria 4 of PORNBIO as one of the participants in the German version of Beauty and the Geek. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2010 (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.