Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nina Ferrari
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 was Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 19:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Nina Ferrari
Not notable. She may have appeared in about 76 movies but by porn star standards, that isn't particularly notable. She has appeared in a few porn magazines, but again that doesn't really make someone notable. Epbr123 03:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete — unless Notability is proven. Philippe Beaudette 04:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep At least 77 films (per IMDB), appearances in major magazines, plus a cover. Notable. Dekkappai 00:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Also apparently appeared on an AOL Television show. I added the link, which worked at the time. Seems to have problems now, but shows up on Google... Dekkappai 00:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Note Nominator has significantly changed his nominating statement since the beginning of this discussion. LaMenta3 02:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- No-one cares. Epbr123 02:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes we do. Revising history in a discussion is strongly frowned upon throughout Wikipedia, see WP:TALK#Own comments. And it helps make it clear that you're not an experienced editor, and may not be overly familiar with wikipedia policies, guidelines and precedents, which might well be relevant (at the least, it might affect how closely someone wants to study your nominations before forming a conclusion). LaMenta3 is quite right to point it out, although it doesn't seem unduly significant in this particular case. Anyway, please stop doing that. TIA Xtifr tälk 07:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you were an experienced user, you would have heard of WP:AGF & WP:CIVIL. I did consider whether the change was significant before I made it. I suspect I have more experience than you. Epbr123 09:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am quite familiar with both policies, thank you. There's nothing against AGF in thinking you might be inexperienced and your proposals might stand a little extra scrutiny (experience and good faith are orthogonal), and I see nothing uncivil above except your "no one cares" comment (which is also incorrect). Xtifr tälk 20:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you were an experienced user, you would have heard of WP:AGF & WP:CIVIL. I did consider whether the change was significant before I made it. I suspect I have more experience than you. Epbr123 09:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes we do. Revising history in a discussion is strongly frowned upon throughout Wikipedia, see WP:TALK#Own comments. And it helps make it clear that you're not an experienced editor, and may not be overly familiar with wikipedia policies, guidelines and precedents, which might well be relevant (at the least, it might affect how closely someone wants to study your nominations before forming a conclusion). LaMenta3 is quite right to point it out, although it doesn't seem unduly significant in this particular case. Anyway, please stop doing that. TIA Xtifr tälk 07:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- No-one cares. Epbr123 02:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep she is a notable pornstar.Kamui99 12:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per multiple appearances in magazines. I counted about 50 pages devoted to her in various magazines, in addition to a cover photo. -- Black Falcon 18:51, 1 April 2007 (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.
