Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Fiorentino
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 nomination was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 04:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jessica Fiorentino
Was prodded on the 3rd, then removed on the 6th. SOmeone then tagged for speedy delete, but that was reverted to the 3rd's prod. Procedural listing as reprodding was out of process. The prod reason was failing WP:PORN BIO. She has 91 credits on her IAFD profile, 9 short of the porn bio's standards. Metros232 12:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I'd like to point out that WP:PORN BIO says "around or over 100 edits." 91 seems close enough to count. If someone can find another notability criterion that she meets or weakly meets, I honestly think she should be included. Captainktainer * Talk 12:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete: The article is too short to be a biography in its current state. -- Netsnipe (Talk) 20:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. We should not remove this because she is 9 films out of 100 shy of meeting a proposed guideline. Yamaguchi先生 18:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Ultimately, while the number of films Ms. Fiorentino is in is close to the 100 mark in the guideline, there isn't any other claim to notability and the article, as it currently stands, doesn't resemble a biography, but more of a bloated piece containing statistics exclusively. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 20:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Two points need to be made here. First, Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) suggests that if an adult performer "has been in around or over 100 movies" they may merit an article, the one hundred mark is an approximation, not a concrete figure. Secondly, if you combine the two databases referred to within the article, it adds up to well over one hundred credits, even after subtracting the duplicates which come about from alternative title names. I understand that the purpose of proposing the PORN BIO guideline is to discourage every 18 year old girl out there with an erotic website from spamming Wikipedia, but this porn star actually is one, and I see no valid reason why this article should not be included. RFerreira 00:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree with that Chwyatt 17:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. Does seem to comply with the spirit of what's notable under WP:PORN BIO. Obviously need some expansion. --Satori Son 16:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- keep please she is a notable porn star erasing would make no sense Yuckfoo 01:26, 13 July 2006 (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.
