Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikki Sun


 * 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. Good discussion, with the weight of argument and consensus going to delete.-- Kubigula (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Nikki Sun

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - agree with Epbr123. Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:N through passing WP:ENT per prolific contributions to a field of entertainment. 158+ films convinces me. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails PORNBIO. Cannot determine significance of roles to satisfy ENT. IAFD or any other pornographic database does not verify significance of role. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Prolific is prolific. IAFD and other sites verify the sheer volume of her work. SImple search shows the genre significance. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, 158+ is not prolific for me in the field of pornography. I am well aware of the limitations of IAFD since I'm one of its editors/maintainers. No guarantees that the movies have not had recycled footage. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Pardon my unseen upraised eyebrow... but do you mean you contribute as do users/editors of Wikipedia? Or do you mean you actually are a member of their staff? And what would you then personally consider as prolific? 200? 600?  Seems that 158 in 7 years is prolific.  MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Go to the front page of iafd.com and scroll down to August 19. In an industry where a new actress can easily shoot 120 scenes in her first year (10 scenes a month), 158 is not that prolific. A contemporary like Jane Darling has over 220 films. Someone like Ariana Jolee, over a period of 6 years, has at least 495 titles. Big whoop. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Prolific, I believe is a moot point. There's a reason why PORNBIO has its own notability guidelines.  ENT is a separate category for Entertainers.  IMHO, we should apply the PORNBIO criteria rather than ENT. Wikipeterproject (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2009 (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.