Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmella DeCesare

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 19:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Carmella DeCesare[edit]

I strongly believe that this page is non-encyclopedic. Why do Playboy playmates get their own articles? For this example, there isn't anything "newsworthy" about CD except for the fact that she posed for an adult magazine and was involved with some charges. She doesnt have any other items noteworthy of mention such as being an actress/singer/etc. Markl222 07:57, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I believe that if someone took the time to write up a page, and it contains factual information, it should be kept. There's no reason to remove it, it isn't harming anything/anywone, it informs, just like most other pages.
- Unsigned keep vote by 68.102.219.124. Samaritan
- if someone took the time to write up a page, and it contains factual information, it should be kept — No. That's not how an encyclopaedia works. An encyclopaedia is not a bin into which one can throw any random facts that one can come up with about any random thing in the universe. Read WP:WIN. Uncle G 18:00, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
Fwiw, there's only one Playmate of the Year per year, and every one of them since 1960 is red or blue linked at Playmate. Among the top of the 74k+ hits for "Playmate of the Year" are reports from major news organizations about Ms. DeCesare's troubles. I'm personally not too keen on the extent of porn-related content on Wikipedia, but that is no reason not to keep. Samaritan 14:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think that there's a distinction to be drawn between what is gossip-worthy and what is notable. Most of this article is the sort of "She had a fight with another woman over her boyfriend." factual information that makes someone gossip-worthy but almost never encyclopaedia-worthy. (I'm sure that thousands of millions of women down the ages have had tussles with other women over their boyfriends. There's nothing at all special about this particular case.) The sole claim to notability here is the Playmate of The Year title. And that, because of the status of the magazine and the notability of the title itself, raises this woman above the notability bar, if only barely. Merge to Playmate or Weak Keep. Uncle G 18:00, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
Delete, this is tabloid content, not encyclopedic. Wyss 21:51, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Random nudie models are non-notable, but the Playboy Playmate of the Year is notable. -Sean Curtin 00:23, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Playboy is notable. The young women that they get to pose for them generally aren't, even if the magazine does hype its sales, and one of the models, by having a "Playmate of the Year" issue. A few of these models, who are mostly amateurs, have parlayed their, ahem, exposure into notable careers. Those few might merit articles in a general encyclopedia; but most, including this young woman so far, would not. --BM 00:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Playmate of the Year title is notable, article needs expansion. Megan1967 02:48, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. It is just manufactured pseudo-notability. Every year, Playboy declares one of the models to be the "Playmate of the Year". This gets their core readership all abuzz, I suppose, as to whether Miss April was really better-looking than Miss October, etc, and they all run out and buy the PotY issue. A year or two later, the PotY ends up getting publicity for being involved in a fight in a bar, which kind of tells you something if you are paying attention. It's just marketing, and the fact that you think the person who is selected by this pseudo-process is notable just makes you a victim of mass marketing. Nothing personal. On the other hand, Wikipedia doesn't need to let itself be a victim of mass marketing. --BM 00:47, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Notability in a way is a product of mass marketing - you cant be notable unless you have a product that can sell to the masses (eg. books, records, films, theories etc). Being PotY is no different than earning a Pulitzer Prize in that respect. Megan1967 05:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - Not really. If you want to be considered current in American Literature or Journalism, you can't really remain ignorant about the winners of the Pulitzer Prize. It is conceivable that there are circles where you have to be up on who won PotY three years ago, but I doubt it. If there are such circles, those people are probably not going to expect to get the information from an encyclopedia. If they do -- well, I don't mind if they are disappointed. --BM 15:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      - An encyclopaedia will live or fall on its usefulness. If someone finds the article useful thats fine with me. Btw why do you regard a Blogger award as notable yet PotY as not? PotY has been around decades longer than blogs (and PotY more widely known for that matter). Megan1967 08:53, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Although the part about her fight with another girl should be deleted, the rest should be kept. She's not only a figure in Playboy history but was also part of a major sports company. -NormalChick
Keep, quite interesting. Grue 10:36, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I created this page, so of course I'd vote that way. Perhaps every Playmate of the Month is not notable, but Miss DeCesare is in a select company. Two, she has done a few things outside the realm of Playboy. Three, most of the sites that will come up on Google for her name I suspect will be pornographic and here's a short article with facts about her that is not. PedanticallySpeaking 16:59, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

I'd disagree that the fight is "gossip". Gossip would be so and so is dating someone. She was arrested and put on trial for assault--which elevates it out of the realm of gossip. PedanticallySpeaking 20:08, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

If we get a picture in here, I'd vote to keep. Just joking. Delete -- we are an encyclopedia, not Hello! magazine or the gossip page in a tabloid. I know lots of pole dancers who I could write up if that's the way we want to go...... HowardB 07:21, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes but she is Playmate of the Year, not a poll dancer in a pub downtown. I agree not every model or dancer should be included in Wikipedia, but PotY is notable. Megan1967 08:55, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but am I missing something here? Some writers are saying/implying she is special in some way. But the only facts in the article are 1. She was PotY. 2. She wrestled on WWE 3. She was arrested in a bar scuffle. As for "article needs expansion" -- like how? Maybe we wait for her next arrest or her agent's next publicity stunt. C'mom, guys, she is a very minor celeb. Not encyclopedic. HowardB 14:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I eliminated the "stub" reference because, admittedly, there is not much more to say. I did add some details about how she became a Playmate and am going to check the newspapers once again to see if I can add more. PedanticallySpeaking 20:34, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Other Playmates of the Year are already in Wikipedia. -- Old Right 23:21, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep for same reason as Old Right. Dismas 18:33, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep Despite the fact that she is not that famous, i agree withPedanticallySpeaking that the web needs a non-porn biographical page. Dumboy 00:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Duh, keep. —RaD Man (talk) 00:28, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.