Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heidi Sorenson


 * 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   Delete. Discarding all procedural opposes, there does not appear to be consensus that Sorenson meets the notability guideline for inclusion. While a close of 'no consensus' is also possible here, taking in to account that this is a BLP tips the scales in favor of deletion. A redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1981 would not be unwelcome. Prodego talk  03:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Heidi Sorenson

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens .rf 01:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, weakly. Appears to have enough film/TV work to indicate a nontrivial share of her notability isn't Playboy-related and therefore, barely, to justify an independent article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Her actress career spans from 1981 to 1995. She has been in 7 one-episode appearances of tv series, 2 minor appearances on tv movies and played 6 unnamed characters on movies (like Showgirl in For the Boys (1991) and Aiport Attendent in Fever Pitch (1985)). Just like we can't have an article for every playmate, we can't have an article for every such low profile actress. --Damiens .rf 20:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete the other aspects or her career are also trivial.   DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per HW. Feels she satisfies PORNBIO (criteria 4) with her mainstream credits. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Her mainstream credits does not grant her notability. See above. --Damiens .rf 20:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see ANI at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable by virtue of being a Playmate or her film career; insufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify an article. Robofish (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Redirect and merge to List of Playboy Playmates of 1981. Although she does not pass WP:N on her own, she could still be a search term, and whatever information is available here could simply be merged into the main article. All due respect to Carrite, but the use of automated deletion nominating bots does not seem to fall under the purview of the AfD board; from my understanding, the AfD board is just to discuss the possible deletion of articles. If there is a decision from higher up saying that these articles have to be renominated manually or whatnot, that is fine. However, I feel that keeping them all on principle would be counterproductive. This argument will be copied and pasted, with slight modification, in the debate sections for all applicable AfDs of this ilk. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per HW. If he says keep, that is a good arbiter that consensus will more than be met, since he is strict on these.--Milowent • talkblp-r  13:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban . Monty  845  03:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - lacks the significant reliable coverage to meet notability standards. TerriersFan (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2011 (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.