Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people in Playboy 1960–1969

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 redirect‎ to List of Playboy Playmates of the Month. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of people in Playboy 1960–1969

[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)

This list has been unsourced for over 10 years, and I see no hope of it ever becoming appropriately-sourced without extensive original research. There is significant concern that this list violates WP:BLP as well; see WP:DEL-REASON 7 and 9.

Related lists for other decades have been redirected to List of Playboy Playmates of the Month, which seems like a good solution to me. The exception to that is List of people in Playboy 1970–1979, where the BLAR was reverted (just as it was here). Consider this a WP:BUNDLE nom, as the exact same concerns apply. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 11:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Popular culture. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 11:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Sexuality and gender. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think sourcing may be hard for this since no pornographic sites will be seen as good sources or will be allowed to be linked to.KatoKungLee (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete'. Unreferenced semi-fork of List of Playboy Playmates of the Month. And realistically, while broader, this is just a selective list of contents of the magazine. This is about as encyclopedic as a list of topics of The Economist (1960–1969) or such. A form of fancruft, I fear, not encyclopedic material.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I disagree that the list requires OR or is unsourced (it's all implicitly cited to the publication). I agree that this is basically a WP:CONTENTFORK as well as violating WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It may be possible that the destination article could be further expanded in some way, but a full directory of everyone to appear in a publication isn't the way to do that. merge both to above suggestion. —siro χ o 02:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure that the names of the models appear in the publications. Do they? As you mention, even if they do, there are plenty of issues with these articles. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 07:38, 26 August 2023 (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.