Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie Owens (2nd nomination)

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. Consensus post User:Genericusername57's expansion swings towards the subject being notable. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Susie Owens

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article for relatively unknown pornstar. Single, unreliable source, probably fails BLP Jerry (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jerry (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Jerry (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How has the article changed significantly since the last AfD request, when it was decided that it should be kept? Puddleglum2.0👌(talk) 01:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article was largely kept because at the time a user was listing a string of articles for deletion all at once, leading some users to vote keep for mostly procedural reasons. Other articles in said string have been turned into redirects or deleted altogether in the time between. There was a good point that the star modeled for a couple illustrators, and apparently she was also used as a model used for a comic book character. But said illustrators aren't notable either, nor are the comics which she was apparently a model for. Jerry (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is in a terrible state, but the subject does get some RS coverage (e.g. Dallas Morning News) and sources mentioned in the previous AfD debate. The previous debate ended with a non-admin closure or a disruptive nomination. Not yet convinced either way whether claims of passing WP:BASIC are supported. • Gene93k ([[User talk:|talk]]) 02:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. The only source here is “myplaymates.club”. When you actually try to find sources out there nothing cuts it to meet GNG standards. Trillfendi (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO Playboy Magazine's playmate of the month March 1988 is notable. WP:NTEMP. In addition Gene93k found the Dallas New article. Lightburst (talk) 03:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Half of those models do not have articles, and those that do are notable for reasons independently of their playboy status *as well.* The last example is rather iffy, though I would rather not pursue that article as well seeing Katarina Souri seems to at least be notable in Scandinavia. Taking a look at this article though, besides a one-off personal interest article in a local newspaper, there isn't much reason to keep this article up.Jerry (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jerry that appearing as the Playboy model of the month does not automatically confer notability. Cheers, gnu 57 19:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Sourcing to the websites of her employer does not show notability nor does IMDb. The articles lacks anything even approaching a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sure the article may be sparse, but there is enough material from reliable sources to support a fleshed out biography.[1][2][3][4] Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these seem to note her career as a local perfume-seller after her retirement. Even though there are sources supporting the fact that she is locally popular, if this was an article about a local perfume seller, she wouldn't be considered important enough for an article. Same with the comic thing, and there, her notability is shakier. The comic itself doesn't seem to be very popular, and I can't find too many independent sources mentioning it except in passing.Jerry (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like how you downplay that she was the producer of a popular perfume worn by celebrities like she's some perfume counter girl at the local department store. WP:BASIC notes that "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" and notability is not predicated on geographic scope or locality. Further the locality that you are dismissing is the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has had sufficient RS coverage on several different occasions, Playboy appearances, her comic book, and perfume. Three more sources I've found, one from Texas, the other two from California and Ohio. She is known outside of the Texas area. 1, 2, 3 Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 07:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and many RS flagged above. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:41, 12 November 2019 (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.