Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samantha Sterlyng
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. W.marsh 15:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Samantha Sterlyng
Appears to be a non-notable porn actress. I can't find any assertions of relevance in the article or any reliable sources through Google, so it should go unless anyone can argue otherwise. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 05:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Can't think of any "keep" arguments for this person. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Delete: Even though I apparently created this entry, she is not notable and I can't think of any good reason to keep the article. This is really weird because I don't know who she is, and I have no memory of creating a Wiki entry for her. Hmmm... --Celtic Jobber (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 11:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep There are actually a lot of sources on her. They're individually borderline as reliable sources, but they're not anonymous blogs, and there are a lot of them, which meets Wikipedia:Notability.
- http://lukeisback.com/bloglukeisback/?cat=434 - long interview by Luke Ford August 26, 2007
- http://ainews.com/Archives/Story4390.phtml - long interview by KSEX Wankus, January 27, 2003
- http://www.rogreviews.com/interviews/Samantha_Sterlyng.asp - long interview by Roger T. Pipe
- http://www.lukeisback.com/stars/stars/stars/female/samantha_sterlyng.htm - unpleasant conglomeration of interviews and factoids, but long
- http://avn.com/index.cfm?objectID=ED9BB38B-1372-4B41-C431A0035CDF91D6&slid=204412 - Samantha Sterlyng Still Working In Adult, AVN, Apr 16, 2003
- The following are written or published by her, so don't establish notability, but will be useful to write the article if kept.
- http://ainews.com/Archives/Story4793.phtml - April 15, 2003 Samantha Sterlyng NOT Out of Business
- http://www.samanthasterlyngxxx.com/ - her official site, has a diary
- http://web.archive.org/web/20051028110628/samanthasterlyng.com/general/html/bio.htm - archived bio from older web site, also has a diary
--AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per AnonEMouse. Videmus Omnia Talk 21:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. We really have to consider the reliability of these sources before voting keep, but I think it's the long interviews that make the keep arguments possible, as the self-published and directory-style sources are not an indicator of notability. Do you agree?-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 01:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Interview? These people aka personas are borderline fictional. JUst because it is written as an interview does it mean that there were ever two people involved. Victuallers (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I think the ainews.com and avn.com sources combined are just enough to pass WP:N. I don't think lukeisback.com and rogreviews.com can be used to establish notability. Epbr123 (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep AnonEMouse has found sources and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I would be much happier if there was a clear pointer to something she did that would say to the high heavens: "Samantha Sterlyng does meet WP:BIO". Tabercil (talk) 14:22, 22 November 2007 (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.
