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. The "delete" arguments about the unreliable sourcing are more persuasive than the several "keep" comments that just assert she's notable without further argument.  Sandstein  07:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine Jansen[edit]

Nadine Jansen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication that the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Porn performer in a handful of nn production, so trivial she isn't even listed in most of the standardly-cited-here porn indexes. GNews and GBooks hits negligible (although the searches do show a much more notable jazz performer of the same name); Ghits on lots of galleries but no relevant substantive content. One prior AFD summarily deleted, apparently as coatrack for personal abuse. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A filmography/list of work was removed from this article by a vandal, then "officially" by a notoriously content-hostile editor. (Note: Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged...) Nadine Jansen is a well-known model in English, German and Japanese media. (ナディーン ヤンゼン in Japanese.) However, I'm not getting involved here since content-destruction seems to be the main purpose of the project which presumably over-sees this subject, and she falls outside my particular area of work. If another editor wishes to put in any effort in saving this article on a notable subject, feel free to contact me and I'll do what I can to help. Barring that, there's no sense in fighting a losing battle over a subject that doesn't interest me though. Dekkappai (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has been almost fixed. Needs some cleaning up though. But the fact is that she was 2003 Newcomer of the Year as voted by the Voluptous Mag. That is notable enough. Norum 02:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding back all the unsourced content previously removed from the article is not "almost fixing" it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is sources if you look towards the bottom. The sources are there. I just could not make it click-able. Norum

19:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

None of those are reliable sources under WP:RS and WP:BLP, which was why all the rubbish was removed to begin with. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If link from Vuloptous and the Score magazines and especially her own website is not enough, then there is obviously something wrong with the person that is trying to get her entry deleted. Norum 17:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails PORNBIO because Voluptuous Magazine award isn't a well known award. Fails general notability guideline because none of the sources given in the article and found through google books and news are reliable sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's fine. 69.105.85.184 (talk) 07:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC) — 69.105.85.184 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep She's notable enough. I'm not sure if the instigator of this motion is some religious prude or just a jobsworth, either way I don't think they have any proper reason to want this bio deleted. 90.211.186.163 (talk) 11:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC) — 90.211.186.163 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete Fails PORNBIO and GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She's notable enough. There's no reason aside of the deletionism to remove this bio, and that's not good enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.21.112 (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' - She had her several TV show appearances in mainstream German media. See here for a bit more detail from an ealier article version. That clearly makes her much more notable than someone who just did a few photo shoots. I saw those features myself - and unless you claim I am lying, this then all becomes about the fact that proving appearances in TV shows before the internet age is tricky. For an erotica, not porn, artist, she is clearly notable. Most people may not care about the notability of such performers, but that is not a reason for deletion - in her field she is huge (pun coincidental, but appropriate). Ingolfson (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then there ought to be coverage satisfying the GNG, which nobody has turned up. No article at the German Wikipedia, either, it seems. And TV appearances in 2002 and later years aren't "before the internet age." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is that you lose, Hullaballoo. She's notable enough. Norum 22:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not only is there no evidence of significant coverage by independent reliable sources - a requirement of the general notability guideline and the basic criterion given in the specific criteria for people (of which the criteria for pornographic actors is part) but there doesn't appear to be any coverage by reliable sources at all. The current article is copy pasted from an older version but it only gives apparently unreliable sources such as IMDb as well as obscure, unreliable, non-notable pornographic websites and magazines including http://www.amontillado.it/ and Voluptuous Magazine. Whilst I have to admit I am not familiar with these publications I would imagine that the information contained within them is designed more to titillate rather than to be an accurate source for a high quality encyclopaedia - I can find no evidence that any of the sources have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. This a biography of a living person, the fact that the individual works in a industry from which individuals do not receive a lot of mainstream - or other reliable - coverage does not change the fact that no reliable sources should mean no article. Guest9999 (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO, which is the standard we have to apply since her main claim of notability seems to be having big boobs. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly notable in her field. Spurious proposal for deletion at best. --80.192.1.168 (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. No WP:RS coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Her magazine credits at http://us.imdb.com/name/nm1305322/publicity are probably correct and there's another minor award in there, but the problem is there doesn't seem to be much to say about her beyond listing her credits, which is already done elsewhere. Also, it is so annoying to try to do a web search with all the WP mirrors and even book searches with the Icon group print mirrors! I rather wish Wikipedia's licensing did not allow that, because it's ruining the internet. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 06:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.