Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Heinrich

I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem to me like this person's done anything notable. Deb 19:42, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not sure how I'll vote, yet, but she has appeared in one non-Playboy movie called "Dark Horse" in 2004, where she was "Dog's girlfriend." Otherwise, she's been in Playboy stareware and a Playboy TV show.  The avid teens and sad men who populate the web with ratings of their favorite "babes" seem to like her to distraction. Geogre 01:42, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh, delete. Why should being selected as a playmate get a person her own encyclopedia article when she hasn't done anything else that was noteworthy?  A Google search turns up only porn pictures.  Gimme a break.  --Ardonik 04:20, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
 * Delete. LOL.  Antandrus 04:29, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: I took a few hours to think about it. Being Dog's girlfriend isn't really putting her at the level of a soap opera star (my personal minimum for actor/actress fame).  Being a drool stimulus certainly isn't enough. Geogre 17:40, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * [Not a vote: Anon] Retain. Under Playmate there is a list of Playmates of the Year and famous playmates.  If Playmate warrants an entry, why not the ladies who have held that title?  Cf. the lists of members of Congress, most of whom are similarly anonymous and did not do anything memorable.  I say leave her in.
 * She's very pretty and, um, pneumatic. The question is whether she is notable enough on her own accomplishments to be in an encyclopedia.  She might do great things in the future, or infamous things, and achieve notability for something other than her looks and be included.  She might not.  Information on her is appropriate in the Playmate list, but not as a solo article at this point.  See below, for example, on some of the other notability debates.  The bar is not awfully high, but it's not awfully low, either.  By the way, be sure to sign in.  On VfD, only logged-in users have their votes count. Geogre 01:00, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Feel free to add her to the list of notable Playmates if you really feel like it, but she definitely does not warrant her own entry. Skyler 21:22, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Question: Google result is "583 of about 9,630"; am i right that this means "of the first 1000 hits, only 583 were significantly different"? Would that Google score be keepish or deletish, if her notoriety were based other than on mushy-core porn? I think that would determine my vote, since the tone on this VfD sounds to me excessively high-brow compared to our voracious appetite for punk, anime, video games, and rare sexual practices. --Jerzy(t) 20:24, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure exactly what you meant, but since she was a playmate, it would not suprise me that she had 583 entries on google. I'm betting there are a few actual fan sites and then the rest are redirects to a pay porn site. If someone can expand on the article and show relevant notable status, I will retract my vote. However, I stay with delete because it does not appear that this can be done. Skyler 23:08, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, Jerzy(t), I can tell you why I voted the way I did. I believe that we vote on notability.  I do not think one's body, or exposure of it, is an accomplishment.  As you know, I also don't think we need to be collecting trading cards or writing up our favorite jokes or comic books, but here it's a matter of what she has done.  She is all over Google, yes, in one form: her picture.  In that regard, her accomplishment is akin to Elsie the Borden Cow:  she's an object of graphic art.  I think that her notability as an actress, spokeswoman, author, or anything else, is in the future.  I do believe she'll achieve some.  She is trying films and will, I think, do well.  At present, she is a graphical object. Geogre 01:02, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)