Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikki Loren


 * 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 for now. The one claim to her notability is cited at her IAFD entry. There are a handful more delete opinions than keeps. It does not meet WP:PORN BIO, but in a few months that will be made official, and she'll have more notability (more movies,) and this discussion will prove to be rather academic. (I'll undelete the basic info for you then if you remind me.) Grand  master  ka  03:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Nikki Loren
Non-notable. Of course, there are hundreds of non-notable articles in the porn actor category. Not all of them, I gather, but most. I think those should probably be AFD'd as well. --BradBeattie 14:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Big  top  ( tk | cb | em | ea ) 00:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Hasn't even won a "cum award". 205.157.110.11 00:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Well, it definetly fails WP:PORN BIO but thats only a proposed guideline or policy. None of its verified per say either. But I dont think that having been in 90 videos would be notable in at least the porn industry so I say it fails WP:BIO. SynergeticMaggot 00:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Incorrect, I would say that it does meet WP:PORN BIO ~ true, not in 100 films, but it says "in or around" which to my mind 90 is "around" 100. In any case by the amount of films that these people turn out she will be iron-clad signed and sealed notable per this proposed "standard" within 6 months! -- Librarianofages 02:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * where is the evidence that she has done 90 videos? The external links indicate 50. Not that this is sufficient for inclusion Bwithh


 * Commment: Please dont say "incorrect", this isn't a game show, trivia, or quiz. The article only meets the first criteria under WP:PORN_BIO, which is C1, and fails the rest (C2 - C8). There is no assertion of notability and none of the information has been verified. Also, we cant wait around for this person to make more films per what Wikipedia is not: A crystal ballSynergeticMaggot 04:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:PORN BIO & my above comment -- Librarianofages 02:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:PORN BIO even though it is still in the proposal phases. Yamaguchi先生 02:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Don't see how this is usefull to the community or even notable of an Encylopedia. Aeon  Insane Ward  04:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Might just sneak PORN_BIO, but I don't care for the 100 film criteria.  As noted above, that can be just 6 months work in the industry. -- GWO
 * I think you misunderstood Librarianofages's comment. Librarianofages was trying to say that NL would almost certainly make 10 more films (90+10=100) in 6 months, not 100 films in 6 months. 100 films in 6 months would be quite high even by porn standards. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Conditional delete. Unless anyone else can come up with any other information, the article should just be deleted. She only has 90 films and, even if we were to be generous with the 100 film criteria from WP:PORN BIO, she has no other claims to notability. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 07:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per SynergeticMaggot. Voice of Treason 07:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, doesn't really cut it per WP:PORN BIO and WP:BIO. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 08:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete the in around wording of WP:PORN BIO is weasel words and should be changed. Eluchil404 12:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Whether or not it squeaks by PORN BIO is irrelevant, as it isn't policy or even a true guideline yet, and the 100-films point is one of the most controversial parts anyway. Certainly fails the established WP:BIO by a mile. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete generic porn "actress". Just zis Guy you know? 13:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above Computerjoe 's talk 15:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * keep close enough to 100 films so i think WP:PORN BIO applies.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 20:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per SynergeticMaggot. GassyGuy 20:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This actress (a term I use loosely) has partaken in 90+ adult films, notable in my book.  Will the person who said this feat is easily accomplished in 6 months please stand up?  Sources on that would be appreciated.  RFerreira 22:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That was probably a misunderstanding of an earlier comment. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Alkivar and RFerreira. --Myles Long 19:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep ninety films is an impressive number, at least to me Antares33712 18:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:PORN is a proposal.  This discussion points out the problems with trying to use a specific number for a notability decision.  This is close enought to the proposed criteria to meet it.  Also consider that this article could be deleted today and in 9 months it would qualify since she is now at 100.  Vegaswikian 05:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Alkivar. --M e rovingian (T, C, @) 05:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Fails WP:PORN BIO. Where's the evidence for 90 films? Anyway, this would fall short of the "around 100" requirement and is not sufficently encyclopedically notable if it was 100. (PORN BIO is a proposed guideline not an established one). Don't see any assertion of notability or fame beyond the little info in the article. Bwithh 05:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment/Question Can anyone come up with verification that this porn star has done around 100 movies or even 90 movies. This seems to be impressing a number of keep voters for some inexplicable reason, but it has not been verified as far as I can see Bwithh 05:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I just clicked on the IADB link and it quickly stated 90 Titles. The IMDB has 43 titles.  Many people on this 'pedia have just one or two items in the IMDB and are more marginally qualified.  I re-assert my KEEP 216.141.226.190 16:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, that's a lot of movies. We have many people on here of more marginal importance.  KEEP 216.141.226.190 14:44, 23 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.