Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dana DeArmond

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. (non-admin closure) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dana DeArmond

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

Fails PORNBIO & GNG. Scene awards no longer count Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 11:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 11:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clear case of no attempt at WP:BEFORE.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Here's a helpful hint to the nominator, use the findsources template in your sandbox before dismissing articles as not satisfying the general notability guidelines. Hell, look at some of the citations that are already in the article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Name-drops and p[assing mentnios in books, plus such in-depth gems as "I don't like a man in sandals. If I see a man in flip-flops, I'm like, "You better be headed towards the shower" in an Esquire blurb don't count for anything. Tarc (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you should read some of the other links. Particularly that first one again. The point of notability is notice; "significant coverage" means the coverage has to be substantial; not that the subject matter has to be of substantive value to you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're hanging your notability argument on a single non-notable book, then we're heading for an easy deletion. Tarc (talk) 04:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep on distorting those notability guidelines there. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Passing mentions in sources do not add up to notability, no meeting of WP:PORNBIO either. Tarc (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Morbidthoughts. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Morbidthoughts.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 06:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, bad faith nom and patent lack of WP:BEFORE, clearly passes GNG and WP:BASIC, and at the time of nomination the article already contained several RS supporting, or at least suggesting, a claim of notability. A whole chapter devoted to the subject in Julia Angwin's book Pornography and Seriality: The Culture of Producing Pleasure, several pages in Rich Moreland's Pornography Feminism, the Las Vegas Sun, Esquire or Daily Beast articles clearly are not "a passing mention". Furthermore she was interviewed in Cosmopolitan [7] and in this CNN article. Cavarrone 06:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Morbidthoughts - The sources aren't amazing but notability does seem to be there, Meh piss-poor sources are better than nothing at all. –Davey2010^Talk 17:39, 15 August 2015 (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.