Talk:Nadine Jansen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 10 April 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nadine Jansen article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
Pornography Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Pornography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Cheap porn ad

This is just a cheap porn-ad! Please remove stuff like this! Disgusting, has nothing to do with an encyclopedia!

No way! Nadine is an essential part of cyberculture!!

(and besides that the most beautiful shaped woman on earth)

And less serious articles, like this, are exellent for editing practice :)


If every minor nude model was posted here (along with links to their subscription page), then I agree it would be a problem. But over the years the number of women with breathtaking natural breasts who chose to share them with the world is very limited, and most fanciers can name them all. Robert Pedon, Pauline Hickey, Mary Waters, these names are as well known among erotica fanciers as Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron among baseball fans. Just because everyone isn't aware of their celebrity doesn't make them any less famous. The famous get biographies, and Nadine certainly qualifies. Men will still be looking at her pictures when all of us are dust.

[edit] Changes

Did some changes:
–corrected factual errors (most of her statistics were incorrect).
–altered writing style towards NPOV, erasing such statements as "dark chapter of her life", and "unpleasant scars".
–changed preference to metric units, since they're the original ones.
–put only one set of measurements in the template, since (reportedly) only her bustline has changed, and this is explained in the main part of the article.

No one has explained how she lost inches off her bustline. What, was it that big due to water retention or something? :) Jalabi99 11:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

This happened around the same time as Milena Velba's debut; perhaps this was done to give her a greater numeral advantage over Jansen. Though a woman's bust measurement is hardly a lifetime constant.
Looks like someone has "corrected" her bust size conversion from 38H to 34H. This is incorrect, a European band size 85 (underbust 85±2 cm/33.5±0.8 in) converts either to 38 or 40 (I've seen two methods to define US/UK band sizes, and I'm unsure which one's the "official". You add 5 to an odd-inch underbust measurement, but while some say you add 4 to the even numbers, others say 6).

BTW, you can find an early (November 2, 2001) measurement update here. --Anshelm '77 12:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia's purpose...

They're not trying to be politically correct here they're trying to be as informative as possible. Nadine is a nude model yes, but she's not a porn star or anything.

And why would her being a porn star change ANYTHING of importance? Wikipedia: not censored. Lets keep moralizing outside. MadMaxDog 13:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nadine... Disgusting?

Wikipedia's purpose is not to censor or be politically correct. They serve informative purposes. Nadine is a nude model yes, but she's classy and no porn star. She also puts a new aspect on what is considered beautiful into days society. To me there few a attractive as her.

[edit] Nadine Rating and comments

I went ahead and rated this as a "B" biography article. I agree that this is not as serious a biography as, say, an article on a world leader or a literary figure. However, pop culture figures are an important part of internet culture. Nadine Jansen, having been featured in men's magazines worldwide as well as on the internet, does have some degree of celebrity and in my opinion does deserve a short biography.

The article deserves a "B" in my opinion because I think it is reasonably informative and covers the subject well. It is short, but honestly there is little information available about Nadine Jansen outside of what she provides herself to the public. This is not unusual in the case of someone who works as a model. The article could use some tightening up grammatically but is otherwise sufficient for the subject.

As far as the issue of whether or not this is advertising, I don't think so. If the Nadine Jansen article is advertising, then so are the Wikipedia articles on the Harry Potter series of books, or Star Trek, or the Beatles, or any of the other subjects on Wikipedia who have works for sale. I don't see how discriminating against Jansen makes any sense. The product that she sells is nude pictures of herself, and it is up to the viewer/consumer whether or not they would like to see such a thing, just as it is up to the consumer whether or not they will buy Harry Potter books or Beatles albums. As others have pointed out, Jansen is a nude model and not a porn star, and the picture featured here is not even a nude, so IMHO someone would just basically have to be offended by breasts in general in order to object to this. It's also worth pointing out that Jenna Jameson and other porn stars have articles here as well, so why not Nadine Jansen?

Finally, I agree that articles like this provide good practice for writers who might later want to take on a more "serious" project. - Happydog, 12/9/06

[edit] On Notability

While I am still searching (and not succeeding) for notable references, I'd like (just for the record, I have seen other pages suddenly get deleted) that Nadine is notable by way of having several non-compilation movies named after her. MadMaxDog 10:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference: [1]

[edit] Prodding

Someone put a tag on this for deletion. I have removed it, based on the fact that Nadine has repeatedly been featured in mainstream, non-pay-per-view TV in Germany (Sat.1). I have seen it myself, and Nadine mentions it several times on her website here. MadMaxDog 01:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur with your decision. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
If it's such a big deal, take it to AFD to reach consensus.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
This does not need an afd, this needs a slightly better reference for her TV appearances, and that would be it.Ingolfson 07:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amontillado.it appears not to be a reliable source

Even if it is true information, I don't think it's a reliable source. Given the opinions and presentation on their page about Bea Flora, would you accept that as being a quality source? I'm not removing it just yet, but it's of concern.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you, even though I dug up those. Damn hard to get good sources though. Do you have any concerns that this information might be problematic? Ingolfson (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)