Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riana Rouge

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) 10:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Riana Rouge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable game developed by a non-notable publisher. Stars a barely notable Playmate whom I have also put up for deletion. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep—A search of google books returns 30 valid hits; more than enough to meet Wikipedia notability requirements with proper citation. The game is also reviewed on multiple reputable computer game web sites.—RJH (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I realize this is part of a good faith mass nomination started by Off2riorob and now apparently expanded by The Wordsmith, 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 other playmates now pending). I went back to see what the actual track record is here, and I don't see an AfD for a playmate that resulted in a delete since the summer of 2004 (and there's only one!) I guess WP:PORNBIO eventually was edited to say that playmates are considered notable to reflect what the AfDs were showing and thus avoid pointless debates. The fact that WP:PORNBIO was recently amended doesn't change the past precedent. See:

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stephanie Heinrich (Aug 04 - appears it was a delete, article was recreated in July 05 and not been challenged since)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Audra Lynn (Oct. 04 keep)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dalene Kurtis (Dec. 04 keep)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmella DeCesare (Feb 05 keep)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Waite (April 06 keep)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Liz_Stewart (March 07 keep)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marliece Andrada (Sept 07 keep) (Closer comment: "Absent stronger evidence, there is a longstanding consensus that all Playboy centerfolds are notable, given the fame of the publication both within and without its genre.")

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Evenson (May 08 keep)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charlotte Kemp (Jan 10 keep)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Carrington (Feb 10 keep)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Pilgrim (model) (March 10 keep)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margie Harrison (March 10 keep)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colleen Farrington (March 10 keep)

--Milowent (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has enough coverage to meet GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Beside reliable online citations, this game is also covered by PC Gamer Issue #114 (Sep. 2003). Certainly seems to be an article-worthy topic. -Thibbs (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Week keep. Passes WP:N but needs refs badly. —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  15:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Gillian Bonner, since most coverage relates to its association with her, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all of the above WP:GNG mentions. Dismas|^(talk) 08:25, 26 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.