Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nina Carter


 * 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 KEEP. postdlf (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Nina Carter

 * – ( View AfD View log )

non notable former model  Wuh  Wuz  Dat  15:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete no verifiable and reliable sources to indicate she has done anything notable. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep verifiable and reliable sources indicate notability. Well-known cameo in very famous movie, ex-Rockstar squeeze and subject of extensive and recent piece in 2,000,000 daily-selling national newspaper which has the second most-visited news website on the planet. All of this fully cited. Silly season comes early. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment A cameo part in a movie doesn't establish notability (see Wikipedia Guidelines on Entertainer Notability). There is also the question if Page3 would be considered a reliable 3rd party source under the policy on reliable sources.  Being listed in IMDB, for instance, has historically been held to be insufficient by itself to establish notability.  For example, I have a friend listed on IMDB: He's a great guy, done some cameos in movies but he is not notable.  Dennis Brown (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I hadn't intended that each assertion of notability be considered on an individual basis to the exclusion of the others, rather that they be considered collectively, but you knew that. You may question the reliability of Page 3 as a source, but consenus is heavily against you. I'm uncertain what relevance the mention of iMDB has to this AfD? Also, you neglect to mention the hefty Daily Mail piece from nine months ago though, not surprising, as it's injurious to your argument, no matter how many times you make it. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 07:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - this one is going to be hard to prove one way or the other. The Daily Mail article indicates that she was notable, and once notable, a person is always notable. Bearian (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. You don't have to do anything notable, the guideline says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. We have the recent Daily Mail article (significant coverage), and here's another in the Sunday Mirror of 19 November 2000. Edgepedia (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2011 (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.