Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Jane Hamilton

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 No consensus. Opinion on whether Ms. Hamilton meets WP:BIO standards is split, with a slight favoring to Keep the article. The article's supporters are invited to strengthen the references for the article, while its opponents are welcome to revisit the AfD later in the year if no effort has been made to improve its contents and references. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Jane Hamilton[edit]

Opposed Prod, subject doesn't appear to meet WP:PORNBIO notability criteria. Gasta220 (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @186 · 03:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not apparent, and doesn't seem likely to be established. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability? Being in 135+ films kinda says it all. Needs expansion and further sourcing through regular editing, not deletion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I made that exact same argument before I read WP:PORNBIO. That was when someone pointed the criteria out to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, but WP:PORNBIO is not meant to be a limitation nor straightjacket (no pun intended) toward notability. When looking at the "additional criteria" we're allowed to also consider WP:ENT's stating "Has had significant roles in multiple television, stage, radio theater, films, television or other productions." 135 films can be considered significant, no matter the content or genre. And too, as has been pointed out below, we can go rightly climb back up the ladder to WP:BIO, WP:GNG and WP:N to consider her being written of in such books as The X factory... itself not exactly a trivial mention... or her being quoted in others such as Skinflicks. PORNBIO was designed to address the fact that porn actors rarely get the same coverage as might actors in mainstream films, and so shows methods to govern genre-specific notability if they fall a bit short of the more commoon parent guidelines of BIO, GNG, and N. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Really, are we considering straight to video "films" as notable? This almost sound like counting google hits and inferring notability from them. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Gudeline has no automatic caveat that says direct-to-video cannot be found notable. On a case-by-case basis, any film can have its notability determined. I personally care little for porn films, and am loathe to seek AVN reviews for 135 films to find which ones might meet or which ones won AVN awards or might otherwise be notable. Even if only a dozen of the 135 can be found notable for its genre, that would be enough per WP:ENT. And no, I did not myself count g-hits. I did research... I do not and will never have a copy of The X factory in my bookcase. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, no alternative basis for inferring notability. 71.235.38.171 (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:N due to her coverage in books. 86.142.164.55 (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is also covered in the Ian Glitter book, "Pornstar"[1], which for obvious reasons I don't have at work with me. Web Warlock (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am going to agree that she has enough coverage to satisfy the general WP:BIO guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I originally closed this as a delete given the lack of sourcing in the article but I was asked to resconsider the sourcing on my talk page. I asked the IP editor to expand on the sources and this is what they stated " The X Factory book devotes a four-page section to her, and the Skinflicks book has a paragraph on her. I don't have access to the Pornstar book that also apparantly covers her. 86.164.58.117 (talk) 1:31 am, Today (UTC+2) " Clearly I have not given the sourcing proper weight so the close is void but I don't think the sourcing is quite there so I am relisting this for the wider community to comment further. The pronstar references would be most useful but we need to know how extensive thecoverage of her is in that book. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she barely skates by the requirements for notability, but skates she does. (AMONGST OTHER THINGS AMIRITE?) JBsupreme (talk) 08:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:BIO and WP:ENT. WP:PORNBIO is additional critera, not a limitation. Chuthya (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sign of significant coverage in independent third-party sources. The "X Factory" "coverage," accessible via Google Books, turns out to be a superficial/promotional interview that wouldn't satisfy WP:RS as originally published and doesn't acquire any greater weightjust by being compiled into a book of similar fluff pieces. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The X Factory coverage included more than just the interview. It's rare for a porn star to receive coverage in top sources, such as books, so that fact that Sarah Jane Hamilton has been in three books probably makes her one of Wikipedia's most notable porn stars. 86.164.58.117 (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:BIO. Dismas|^(talk) 13:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the "Skinflicks: The Inside Story of the X-Rated Video Industry" book, the only mention in the whole book is one sentence: "These are the ladies who try pornographers' imaginations. The diminutive Fallon spurted "G-spot" orgams at will. So did British carrot-top Sarah-Jane Hamilton" [2] (page 294). The other book sources seem to be also collections of anecdotes in the porn industry that are also make passing mentions of many actress, and this person seems to be mentioned in short mentions and not in actual coverage of her biography and her carreer. So, these sources show no significant contribution to the field, or significant coverage of her person, so I'm not sure of how she is supposed to be passing WP:BIO or WP:ENT. As for WP:PORNBIO, she doesn't fullfill any of the points there. Also, no coverage from mainstream media.

And doing a lot of direct-to-video certainly looks like the "has lots of google hits" argument, as does not seem to fullfill the "unique contribution [to a genre]" in #4 of WP:PORNBIO (if all other actress had made many less videos then I would understand, specially if some secondary sources remarked on it as something significant, which is not the case here.) --Enric Naval (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2009 (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.