Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samantha Strong (2nd nomination)

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. MBisanz ^talk 22:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Strong[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Inadequately sourcing for a blp. All we have is that she sold herself - either on camera or in a brothel and that is UNDUE unless we can properly source the rest of her life. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Comment I added some more sources and expanded the article. Missvain (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable pornographic perfromer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm reflecting back on my revamp of the article and the sources - primarily small mentions. The most significant coverage I could find was around an arrest related to an outstanding warrant and the drama that ensued around it. Missvain (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's enough here from reliable sources to satisfy GNG. It's not only one aspect of her life that's covered in the sources. The photo with the cop was newsworthy. The involvement with the serial killer case was newsworthy. The AVN awards were newsworthy and sourced to a RS and not just AVN.

Side note, irrelevant to notability, The comment in the nomination about "sold herself" is not a particularly sensitive way to describe a sex worker. It reflects a value judgment that ill befits comment on wikipedia about a living person. She sold a service. She appeared in adult entertainment. Those things can, and should, be mentioned without the slant. David in DC (talk)

I agree that the nomination remark on which David in DC commented was entirely uncalled for. -The Gnome (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is about a person who worked in porn and as a prostitute without making any waves in either field that would satisfy WP:NACTOR/WP:NMODEL, and once got arrested by the police. It does not get more trivial than that. The sources are a joke: The Miami New Times article is about a Leroy C. Griffith, "pioneer of porn" (at least as far as Miami is concerned, apparently), who manages sex dancers, among whom is Strong; the citation of a book about the infamous Mustang Ranch where our subject used to work (she is indeed mentioned a couple of times among the staff); a work of fiction (!); and then sources to news reports about her arrest or the arresting officers posing with her, along with porn websites tesifying that she starred in adult ware and won awards. -The Gnome (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- She was neither an actress or a model, so she has no more need to meet those than she needs to meet WP:FOOTBALL. The question is whether she meets WP:GNG, and these repeated misunderstandings of of guidelines add nothing to these discussions. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still can't see the direct link between WP:PORNBIO and WP:ACTOR/WP:NMODEL, huh? Our subject is listed as a " former pornographic actor." And here is what WP:ACTOR says, actually, quoted for your perusal: "Previous criteria for pornographic actors [i.e. WP:PORNBIO] were superseded by the above [i.e. WP:NACTOR] and the basic guidelines after the March 2019 RfC." Alla them porn actors from March 2019 onwards have their notability assessed on the basis of GNG or the NACTOR specifcs. Clear?

-The Gnome (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the RfC didn't propose that language in WP:NACTOR, the RfC closer didn't mention it, and the post-RfC discussion had a consensus to do something else entirely and it only existed because of some random user adding it anyway, I've removed it so we never have to have this discussion again. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, adult film stars are indeed actors or actresses. One of my goals is to represent them with the same dignity allotted to their "mainstream" actor brethren. Missvain (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They're not actors in the sense WP:NACTOR conceives of, which is why it's basically impossible for anyone in porn to meet those guidelines; they're much more accurately seen as entertainers in this context (if one were going to try to pin an SNG to them). Nonetheless, there's never been a discussion proposing, let alone a consensus for, a requirement that they should have to meet WP:NACTOR. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant SNG is WP:Notability (people)#Entertainers, for which WP:ENT, WP:NMODEL and WP:NACTOR are shortcuts. It is meant to apply to entertainers of all types except musicians. That SNG also includes pundits and celebrities. As a performer of a role for entertainment of views, the porn performer meets the literal definition of actor. As a former stripper, the subject meets the loose definition of dancer. Finally the RfC explicitly calls for porn stars to be evaluated under the entertainers. The WP:ENT criteria are attainable as long as independent reliable sources support the notability claims. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ENT / WP:BASIC. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was skeptical before, but after missvain and coffeeandcrumbs edits, I believe she passes WP:BASIC [1][2][3] plus the multiple mention of her brotheling activities. Her awards and hall of fame status are evidence towards WP:ENT. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For your references to general notability I won't respond any further but about the porn related regalia, I must point out that, after the deprecation of WP:PORNBIO, porn awards are not enough by themselves as evidence of notability. Otherwise, it'd be as if WP:PORNBIO were still in place, intact and omnipotent. -The Gnome (talk) 09:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources in the article just look too close to tabloid journalism, and hence WP:BLPSOURCES has to come into play. I found sources in a news search, but for a different Samantha Strong in the UK who was arrested for (but not convicted of) fraud, who doesn't look notable either. Therefore keeping this article would be problematic for people expecting the festival organiser to be suddenly confronted with information about a pornographic actress. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the depreciated WP:PORNBIO guideline. Her only notability derives from pornography, and perhaps other Mustang ranch activity. There has been WP:CONSENSUS to delete such subjects recently. Wm335td (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We do not delete articles on people whose "only notability derives from pornography": there is no such guideline, no such consensus, and Wikipedia is not WP:NOTCENSORED. (This is not about this article per se, just opposing people posting intentionally misleading claims about notability guidelines in the hope that no one notices and it gets let slide.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am definately not trying to mislead anyone. Pornbio was depreciated. If we take out the pornography notability what are we left with? As Ritchie333 has said below, not much. A Polaroid with police? My opinion is that we have a WP:PORNBIO and there is not other notability. So that is a delete per consensus on our People Notability discussion. Wm335td (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:GNG, in my opinion. Dflaw4 (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the claim "The officers paid $15 for a glossy photo of them with Strong and $10 for a Polaroid photograph of Strong wearing only a g-string, which were taken after her performance at a Tucson strip club" (which makes up a significant chunk of the article) was cited in multiple pieces in the New York Times and the Washington Post, I might agree with you, but for this sort of subject, which involves treating living people respectfully and carefully, we need much more solid sourcing than local newspapers. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your position, Ritchie333, and while I don't disagree that "New York Times" or "Washington Post" sources would be preferred, I still feel there is enough to meet GNG. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per points from David in DC.--Goldsztajn (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete striking my vote, thinking further on this as a BLP, there's possibly some evidence the subject of the article is not interested in being remembered ("Then there are those girls who are just gone. Samantha Strong was from the ‘80s and it’s like...what the f*** happened to her?"). I realise that the wishes of the subject of an article do not determine whether an article exists and we can't discern that here anyway, but this caused me to rethink my !vote here. Looking at this again, I can see that there is not much depth here to satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER: no significant productions, no evidence of a fan base and there is no evidence of "unique, prolific or innovative contributions".--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We do not keep pornbios any more without WP:SIGCOV. The pornography awards are not notable either. I agree with the notion that the photo taken with police makes up a lot of the article. We certainly do not have SIGCOV, and so I cannot see that this person passes. Lightburst (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2020 (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.