Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heide Mann

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was delete. Nandesuka 18:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heide Mann

Completely unremarkable adult model from the 70s. Article contains nothing more than the fact that she was on the cover of Penthouse magazine in late 1970, and Google appears to have nothing ("Heidi Mann" as this article details is lost in the background noise, "Heidi Mann" + penthouse gives 9 sites, each of which can be summed up as "This is the October 1970 issue of Penthouse. Heidi Mann is on the cover.") Saberwyn 00:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - whilst I might consider "Pet of the Year" as possibly a claim to notoriety, "Pet of the Month" is not. They usually have all of what 3 models per month, and so it just means that she beat the other 2. Its not a contest that she's won, and is really just a way of advertising for the magazine. Not notable. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Unfortunately this is all we seem to know about her is a one-line substub and a cover of the relevant edition. Unless there is more to be said, delete. BTW, have you checked for "Heide Mann" to see if that comes up with more info. Capitalistroadster 00:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • If you mean in Google, I get 173 total results for "Heide Mann, of which 52 are unique. Skimming through the first page, I find it is dominated by the genealogy of a French surname, authors of computing/programming works and theories, and several different people whose surname is either 'Heide-Mann' or 'Heidemann'. I also get one hit for Wikipedia where the name is mentioned on a list of Penthouse Pets. Nothing beyond 'she was on the cover of an issue of Penthouse' for this girl. Saberwyn 00:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I just had a look at List of Penthouse Pets. I am so removing all those red links!! - Saberwyn 00:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - nn. worthawholebean talkcontribs 01:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PJM 01:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nn-bio. Will tag as such. --YixilTesiphon Say hello Consider my Wikiproject idea 04:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep verifiable person, famous enough to grace a cover of a VERY VERY WIDELY purchased magazine, if we can have Pokecards (which are even less notable IMO) I see no reason she cant stay. Also this is not a valid speedy IMO... let the AFD run its course.  ALKIVAR™ 04:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Nobody's arguing that she's not an actual person, just that there's no way to get an actual article about her. Also, care to expalin why it's not a valid speedy? --YixilTesiphon Say hello Consider my Wikiproject idea 05:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Per WP:CSD:
        1. Very short articles providing little or no context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great."). Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context to allow expansion. Google may help in determining context, though, and allow for the article's expansion. (emphasis mine) There is enough context to allow expansion...
        2. Unremarkable people. An article about a real person that does not assert their importance or significance. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead. (emphasis mine) as we seem to dispute whether or not she's notable it belongs on AFD.
      • Thats my reasoning anyway proper procedure says list on AFD... you will probably get your wish that it be deleted anyways.  ALKIVAR™ 05:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete About as nn as a centerfold gets... --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 06:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the list of pets she's listed on (and remove the link back to this article. this "article" is a mere factoid and more info about her doesn't seem to be available, which seems to make this a permanent substub. Willing to reconsider if someone can prove it's expandable. - Mgm|(talk) 10:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Mgm. If the subject meets our inclusion policies and guidelines, as it appears she does, then she needs to be included - but it does not follow that she needs an article of her own, if there is really no scope to expand it at this time. Since there is an appropriate article that already says all there is to say about her, I don't see that anyone loses anything by redirecting this; the redirect means people looking for her will find her, and the main article means people who find her will find her in context. Sounds good to me. — Haeleth Talk 13:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete wankercruft non-notable "adult model" (i.e. woman who took her kit off for one verifiable photoshoot) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and unlink: Look, I'm old enough to have been through puberty when she was there, and I remember her fondly. She was quite famous for quite a brief period of time. Since she never managed to develop a public career beyond that, there is nothing really to say beyond the context of that shoot. Therefore, there is no way to write an article about her, nor justification for a separate discussion. This is, by the way, exactly the rationale I use for contemporary porn queens and "glamour models" and the like. It isn't that they're not pretty or famous, but rather that they're ephemera. Today's HotBody is tomorrow's Heide Mann. Geogre 15:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect and delink, per Mgm above. Anyone who comes looking for the name should be able to find the sum of information that we have available on this person, which is already there. BD2412 T 19:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • P.S. - there's no rule against throwing a couple of magazine cover pics onto the list - this would fall under fair use so long as it's merely a smattering (to show changes over time, perhaps), rather than the whole catalogue. BD2412 T 19:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Mgm and others above. If more info avaliable on her, add into article relavent to her subject. No use in having seperate article. -Refusetobesilenced 23:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect and delink per users above. Movementarian 10:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
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.