Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samantha Bentley

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. Michig (talk) 09:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Bentley

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

Lots of sources but they are either independent but not reliable or vice versa. Interviews dont count anyway. None of the awards past muster either being either scene or not well known &/or significant. Therefore fails pornbio and gng. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable pornographic actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per sources in the article (and online) more specifically [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11], A good majority of the sources in that article should be removed but what I've listed are all absolutely fine and as such she clearly meets GNG (Just to add interviews are also fine and are generally used on thousands of articles if text is present). –Davey2010^Talk 02:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What Davey2010 said. Bogger (talk) 10:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: the sources offered above are insufficient; they are of tabloid variety (i.e. therealpornwikileaks.com, nydailynews.com), blogs (peta.org.uk/blog) and / or soundbites from the subject, such as "porn questions answered by professionals: tanya-tate-joybear", etc. This is insufficient for a BLP, as an NPOV article cannot be built from such sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have sources like Cosmopolitan (which are a part of Hearst Digital Media), New York Daily News, Huffington Post, Contactmusic.com, Metro, Penthouse Magazine and PETA which are reliable sources, One can easily build an article with the sources here, The only problematic source is "Therealpornwikileaks" which realistically should be replaced however as demonstrated this BLP clearly meets GNG or most certainly BASIC by a long mile. –Davey2010^Talk 19:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. I don't have any particular issue specifically with tabloid sources and it seems there is enough overall, coupled with a reasonable amount of daily article views, to suggest there is notability. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm feeling a difference in the exclusion criteria of articles about pornstars. Several articles are being saved because existis a serie of trivial statements that do not characterize notoriety (minor mainstream media appearances, DJ work, suspicions intervils, etc). Excluding these trivial statements, there is no difference between the article in question and this Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Melissa Lauren. Guilherme Burn (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or deleted in this case) is not a valid reason for deletion, The sources aren't trivial and you would know that if you actually clicked on them. –Davey2010^Talk 00:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Davey2010 - Excellent sourcing available and could be improved. -- Dane ^talk 04:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly Notable per Cosmopolitan_(magazine), New_York_Daily_News, and the pile of newspapers magazines and other WP:RS at Google News search "Samantha Bentley". Reliable, respected, mainstream publications that are definitely not tabloids. Less important contributing "points" for Penthouse_(magazine) Pet of the month, Game of Thrones, assorted awards, and any sources that actually are tabloids. Just for laughs, and to drive home how widespread the coverage is, I'll cite the passing mention at SpaceNews - "a print and digital publication that covers business and political news in the space and satellite industry".[12]
Given the level of WP:GNG sourcing, I don't see how there would even be a deletion discussion if she had worked in any other film genre. Alsee (talk) 06:02, 30 March 2018 (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.