Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anastasia Christ
Source: 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The result was Nomination withdrawn. Epbr123 18:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Anastasia Christ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Not notable. Keep I admit she does seem to be prolific in the big bust genre. (Even though she's only a C cup). Epbr123 08:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Yet more porn actreses trying to use wikipedia as advertising space to further their careers by looking notable.--Zedco 11:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please don't confuse the issue...this article does not to appear to have been created by the actress or anyone directly affiliated with her. LaMenta3 20:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep I've cleaned up and referenced this article a bit, and it appears that she has been in a large number of films (87 US releases and at least 26 European releases), which satisfies WP:PORNBIO Q2, and she appears to be rather prolific in both the big bust and anal subgenres. (Satisfies VC4)LaMenta3 20:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Number of films in a genre can contribute to a porn star's prolificness, and certainly more so than the Google test, which on its own is unquestionably invalid, but it does speak to both the size of an entertainer's fanbase/following (see WP:BIO) and the prolificness of their work and can be used in conjunction with more valid criteria of either WP:PORNBIO or WP:BIO to make a determination of whether they have a significant following and/or are prolific in any genre. This actress doesn't even seem to be prolific in porn in general, or anything else for that matter. I can't find anything about this actress other than her IMDB (and similar) profiles and some minor mentions/inclusions on spammish porn sites. She doesn't even have a website of her own. While even that is not an immediate grounds for inclusion/exclusion, again, it is a piece of evidence that needs to be looked at as a part of a whole. All of the sources in this article are IMDB (or similar) and while such sites may be used as sources in conjunction with other reliable sources, including the actress' own website, if she has one, as this is an article about a person and would be considered a primary source provided the information is neutral, and preferably at least one third-party reliable source, IMDB-ish sites alone are not acceptable as reliable sources. Epbr123 20:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Copy-pasting my EXACT wording from a different case where I voted delete, is not going to help prove your point. For that matter, you changed your nominating statement to keep this article after I had sourced it and cleaned it up, so plagiarizing my argument (which actually supports the keeping of this article as much as it supports deleting the other) in an attempt to use my words against me makes very little sense here. I make a good faith effort to expand upon and/or confirm the notability of EACH of the articles that I vote on in ANY AfD, especially in cases where it could go either way. From now on, please at least form an original argument instead of spamming AfDs with someone else's words. LaMenta3 22:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Number of films in a genre can contribute to a porn star's prolificness, and certainly more so than the Google test, which on its own is unquestionably invalid, but it does speak to both the size of an entertainer's fanbase/following (see WP:BIO) and the prolificness of their work and can be used in conjunction with more valid criteria of either WP:PORNBIO or WP:BIO to make a determination of whether they have a significant following and/or are prolific in any genre. This actress doesn't even seem to be prolific in porn in general, or anything else for that matter. I can't find anything about this actress other than her IMDB (and similar) profiles and some minor mentions/inclusions on spammish porn sites. She doesn't even have a website of her own. While even that is not an immediate grounds for inclusion/exclusion, again, it is a piece of evidence that needs to be looked at as a part of a whole. All of the sources in this article are IMDB (or similar) and while such sites may be used as sources in conjunction with other reliable sources, including the actress' own website, if she has one, as this is an article about a person and would be considered a primary source provided the information is neutral, and preferably at least one third-party reliable source, IMDB-ish sites alone are not acceptable as reliable sources. Epbr123 20:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Well over 100 films, prolific in specific genres, article is well-sourced. Dekkappai 21:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note The nominator has significantly edited his original nominating statement. Dekkappai 21:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close as the nominator has withdrawn and the delete vote was from an apparent single-purpose account. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:42, 24 March 2007 (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.