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.
This strikes me as inherently problematic. There are numerous magazines in this genre which use a monthly featured model as a marketing gimmick, and it is really nothing more than that. Sourcing is not great for showing that the list itself is notable. The vast majority of names on this list are non-notable people. If anything, the existence of the designation should be discussed in the
Penthouse (magazine) article, and an abbreviated list should be presented there, limited to notable individuals who happen to have been so-named.
BD2412T18:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)reply
COMMENT - FYI as far as article creator
User:MutterErde: "This user has been banned from editing the English Wikipedia by Jimbo Wales". Don't know the issue(s) involved - maybe BLP or the like - just surprised it was Jimbo.
— Maile (
talk)
21:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Notification of the article creator is automatic, but I don't think that weighs into the propriety of the article itself one way or the other.
BD2412T21:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)reply
COMMENT I don't think this can be compared to regular periodicals as it's an integral part of the identity, just like Playboy centrefolds. It's something people will be interested in. I also don't think the notability of any people should weigh in here as it's about the notability of the list. Obviously such a list should be complete. I think any decision should be based on the quality and sustainability of the list. So unless there's obvious problems in that regard I'm leaning towards keep as I haven't seen any valid criticism against the list itself.
Biofaseflame|
stalk 00:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure why you're singling out one list to the exclusion of others. It sounds more like you're applying notability as a competitive criteria and not a value criteria. So I'm sticking with my criteria unless the article itself is problematic there's no reason not to keep it. Also I hope you're not referring to the old "wikipedia is not..." argument which has been put to death already as false. Wikipedia is whatever an encyclopedia is and encyclopedias do include how-tos and lists when they are relevant to the time.
Biofaseflame|
stalk 20:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)reply
According to deletion policy,
reasons for deletion include articles that are not encyclopedic according to
WP:NOT policy, and in this instance, there does not appear to be support in independent and reliable sources for the notability of this group. I found this article while working on another, because of vague mentions in low-quality tabloid-style sources about the subject having been a Penthouse Pet. And from a general AfD view, this also does not appear to be a notable honor, because of the lack of independent, reliable, and secondary support for the encyclopedic significance - without support in such sources, it appears reasonable to exclude what also appears to be a mostly
unverified list of
people who are not well-known.
Beccaynr (
talk)
21:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)reply
If the list itself is unverifiable it's one thing but this seems to be a made up reason not in the policy as a list is an encyclopedic tool and does not need to be supported or even exist in sources. That's why I said if there are problems with the content of the list then mention it but there are no obvious problems with such a list itself.
Actually just did a quick google search and "penthouse magazine" returns about 30m results while "penthouse pets" return about 20m with many sites dedicated to lists and archives of pets so the topic itself seems pretty notable to me.
Biofaseflame|
stalk 21:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, I shouldn't have mentioned verification when this discussion is otherwise about encyclopedic notability of the group, and sufficiently independent and reliable sources to support notability. So on that topic, the use of a
Google test does not help identify specific sources to support notability. If this is a notable distinction in a modeling career, then let's establish that with sources; otherwise, this list appears to lack encyclopedic significance.
Beccaynr (
talk)
22:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)reply
The
WP:NYPOST and
WP:DAILYMAIL (the second and third sources linked in the comment above) are not suitable for supporting
notability. The first source is a Youtube video of a "The Penthouse Pet of the year, 1977" interview by the
CBC, posted in 2010 and described as "In this clip from 1977, the Penthouse Pet of the year - Vicki Johnson - talks about why she posed for the magazine at a time when Penthouse was considered more controversial than it is today" on the website, which does not appear to support the notability of the Penthouse Pets group.
Beccaynr (
talk)
18:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Those aren't the only sources. Penthouse group is often in the news. There are so many reputable sources that have mentioned it. They have been mentioned in news sources of all political spectrum. I don't see why it is not notable.
Polarbear678 (
talk)
18:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)reply
The New York Post article isn't even about someone who was a Penthouse Pet! It's about a girl literally living in a penthouse suite (a top-floor apartment).
BD2412T19:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Guidelines and policy indicate the notability of Penthouse magazine does not contribute to notability for Penthouse Pets as a group - the
organizations and companies notability guideline, which has a
focus on some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for
advertising and promotion and a need for quality sourcing, has a section about
no inherited notability, e.g. An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not "inherit" notability due to their membership. For this article, we theoretically could verify group membership with the Penthouse website, but this would seem to be
WP:PROMO if independent and reliable sources do not support the notability of the Penthouse Pets group.
Beccaynr (
talk)
19:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. There is exactly one other such publication that is as notable as Penthouse, as
Biofase correctly points out, and indeed we have a List of Playmates of the Month article for that one. References to Pets of the Month are numerous, including in reliable secondary sources. I don't accept the nom's slippery slope argument. The Hustler Honeys or the Genesis centerfolds have nowhere near the notability of those who appeared in Playboy or Penthouse.
Owen×☎18:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Penthouse Pets are not at the same level as Playboy Playmates. A significant number of men could probably name a Playmate (even if inaccurately in the case of
Marilyn Monroe), while few could identify a Pet.
Clarityfiend (
talk)
00:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Milowent: Yes, the magazine is notable. I have no objection to content on the concept of the "Penthouse Pet" being included in the article,
Penthouse (magazine), including a list of notable persons so designated, but there is strangely almost nothing in the article on the magazine about this subject (two lines in the lede, nothing at all in the body).
BD2412T22:43, 27 November 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.
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.
This strikes me as inherently problematic. There are numerous magazines in this genre which use a monthly featured model as a marketing gimmick, and it is really nothing more than that. Sourcing is not great for showing that the list itself is notable. The vast majority of names on this list are non-notable people. If anything, the existence of the designation should be discussed in the
Penthouse (magazine) article, and an abbreviated list should be presented there, limited to notable individuals who happen to have been so-named.
BD2412T18:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)reply
COMMENT - FYI as far as article creator
User:MutterErde: "This user has been banned from editing the English Wikipedia by Jimbo Wales". Don't know the issue(s) involved - maybe BLP or the like - just surprised it was Jimbo.
— Maile (
talk)
21:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Notification of the article creator is automatic, but I don't think that weighs into the propriety of the article itself one way or the other.
BD2412T21:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)reply
COMMENT I don't think this can be compared to regular periodicals as it's an integral part of the identity, just like Playboy centrefolds. It's something people will be interested in. I also don't think the notability of any people should weigh in here as it's about the notability of the list. Obviously such a list should be complete. I think any decision should be based on the quality and sustainability of the list. So unless there's obvious problems in that regard I'm leaning towards keep as I haven't seen any valid criticism against the list itself.
Biofaseflame|
stalk 00:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure why you're singling out one list to the exclusion of others. It sounds more like you're applying notability as a competitive criteria and not a value criteria. So I'm sticking with my criteria unless the article itself is problematic there's no reason not to keep it. Also I hope you're not referring to the old "wikipedia is not..." argument which has been put to death already as false. Wikipedia is whatever an encyclopedia is and encyclopedias do include how-tos and lists when they are relevant to the time.
Biofaseflame|
stalk 20:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)reply
According to deletion policy,
reasons for deletion include articles that are not encyclopedic according to
WP:NOT policy, and in this instance, there does not appear to be support in independent and reliable sources for the notability of this group. I found this article while working on another, because of vague mentions in low-quality tabloid-style sources about the subject having been a Penthouse Pet. And from a general AfD view, this also does not appear to be a notable honor, because of the lack of independent, reliable, and secondary support for the encyclopedic significance - without support in such sources, it appears reasonable to exclude what also appears to be a mostly
unverified list of
people who are not well-known.
Beccaynr (
talk)
21:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)reply
If the list itself is unverifiable it's one thing but this seems to be a made up reason not in the policy as a list is an encyclopedic tool and does not need to be supported or even exist in sources. That's why I said if there are problems with the content of the list then mention it but there are no obvious problems with such a list itself.
Actually just did a quick google search and "penthouse magazine" returns about 30m results while "penthouse pets" return about 20m with many sites dedicated to lists and archives of pets so the topic itself seems pretty notable to me.
Biofaseflame|
stalk 21:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, I shouldn't have mentioned verification when this discussion is otherwise about encyclopedic notability of the group, and sufficiently independent and reliable sources to support notability. So on that topic, the use of a
Google test does not help identify specific sources to support notability. If this is a notable distinction in a modeling career, then let's establish that with sources; otherwise, this list appears to lack encyclopedic significance.
Beccaynr (
talk)
22:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)reply
The
WP:NYPOST and
WP:DAILYMAIL (the second and third sources linked in the comment above) are not suitable for supporting
notability. The first source is a Youtube video of a "The Penthouse Pet of the year, 1977" interview by the
CBC, posted in 2010 and described as "In this clip from 1977, the Penthouse Pet of the year - Vicki Johnson - talks about why she posed for the magazine at a time when Penthouse was considered more controversial than it is today" on the website, which does not appear to support the notability of the Penthouse Pets group.
Beccaynr (
talk)
18:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Those aren't the only sources. Penthouse group is often in the news. There are so many reputable sources that have mentioned it. They have been mentioned in news sources of all political spectrum. I don't see why it is not notable.
Polarbear678 (
talk)
18:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)reply
The New York Post article isn't even about someone who was a Penthouse Pet! It's about a girl literally living in a penthouse suite (a top-floor apartment).
BD2412T19:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Guidelines and policy indicate the notability of Penthouse magazine does not contribute to notability for Penthouse Pets as a group - the
organizations and companies notability guideline, which has a
focus on some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for
advertising and promotion and a need for quality sourcing, has a section about
no inherited notability, e.g. An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not "inherit" notability due to their membership. For this article, we theoretically could verify group membership with the Penthouse website, but this would seem to be
WP:PROMO if independent and reliable sources do not support the notability of the Penthouse Pets group.
Beccaynr (
talk)
19:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. There is exactly one other such publication that is as notable as Penthouse, as
Biofase correctly points out, and indeed we have a List of Playmates of the Month article for that one. References to Pets of the Month are numerous, including in reliable secondary sources. I don't accept the nom's slippery slope argument. The Hustler Honeys or the Genesis centerfolds have nowhere near the notability of those who appeared in Playboy or Penthouse.
Owen×☎18:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Penthouse Pets are not at the same level as Playboy Playmates. A significant number of men could probably name a Playmate (even if inaccurately in the case of
Marilyn Monroe), while few could identify a Pet.
Clarityfiend (
talk)
00:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Milowent: Yes, the magazine is notable. I have no objection to content on the concept of the "Penthouse Pet" being included in the article,
Penthouse (magazine), including a list of notable persons so designated, but there is strangely almost nothing in the article on the magazine about this subject (two lines in the lede, nothing at all in the body).
BD2412T22:43, 27 November 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.