Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Jane Hamilton (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   no consensus. I cannot say that this discussion reached consensus, and this is area in which there are sufficiently divergent views in the community as a whole that it is inappropriate to devalue any of the !votes. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  20:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Jane Hamilton
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Subject fails GNG & PORNBIO. JoshyDinda (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, per nom. This is a second AfD. It's worth reading the first one.  It was closed thusly"'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)"It's also worth reading the edit history thereafter. JD is simply taking up the invitation Pastor T extended, on the terms Pastor T suggested. I think this nomination is well-founded and I support it. The supposed notability proves ephemeral when one actually reads the "sources". That was true in 2009 and seems even truer today, given the lack of remediation since that time. David in DC (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "It's also worth reading the edit history thereafter." So read it, please. The references for the article were strengthened. Before AfD there were IMBD, blogs and "Excalibur Films" refs, that were subsequently addressed and replaced by more proper book citations. I do not ignore the closing of the previous discussion, but not considering that (in my opinion, obviously) the notability was already established in that discussion, per consensus (the cited "slight favoring to Keep the article") and per argument-weight, the closing says "article's supporters are invited to strengthen the references for the article" and it was made.--Cavarrone (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Are we reading the same history?
 * bot fixes pre-existing ref
 * bot delinks dates
 * epbr123 removes hair color. Edit summary:(rm unreliably sourced)
 * bot alters infobox
 * bot edit. edit summary: (Replace Infobox adult female with Infobox adult biography, per pending TFD decision)
 * bot adds persondata template
 * bot edit. edit summary: (Moving deprecated imdb, iafd, and afdb from to External links per request)
 * bot edit. Edit summary: m (Removed deprecated parameters from infobox per discussion in Template_talk:Infobox_adult_biography + general fixes using AWB (7707))
 * John of Reading fixes infobox image syntax
 * Dismas removes deprecated, blank field
 * Asarelah adds a category: Bisexual pornographic film actors
 * Kumioko removes deprecated parameter.
 * These are the only edits between the "No consensus weak keep" and the 2nd AfD. There's not a single edit after the closing that improves the article as the closer urged. Announcing that edits were made after the closing that responded to the closer does not make it so. The record discloses that they weren't. The opinion that notability was established in the last AfD is misinformed. Announcing that consensus was reached on notability does not make it so. That is not what "No consensus weak keep" means.
 * Announcing "facts" that are not facts undermines the credibility of the announcer. Assumptions can be rebutted. David in DC (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol!! My method to compare the two versions of the article, the one before the Afd and the actual one, is slighty different from yours, and I have the little suspect the mine is more correct! I not only read the edit-summaries, I more properly compare the two versions, see here!: as I wrote I see the not-reliable sources (IMDB ref, the ref named "lukeford" and the ref named "excalibur") replaced and/or incorporated by the references to the book Skinflicks and to the book X-Factory. I see also the "Refimprove" and the "Notability" tags disappeared. It's not my fault if the editor of this ref-clean-up did not announced it in the edit-summary. I'm not so crazy and so in bad faith to announce something that could be so easily verified.--Cavarrone (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you include the changes made during the pendency of the AfD you get a slightly different result. But not much. Those changes were considered before the first closing. They don't amount to much. The "sources" that were added remained unimproved upon, for more than two years. Only bots and minor edits. As for the book refs, inserted during the AfD, Enric Naval nailed their value way back when:
 * "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" (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."
 * I stand on the shoulders of giants. I can't possibly do a better job than EN did of analyzing the wiki-value of these sources. Calling them minimal would be an insult to every empty gas tank in every car in every junkyard in the Western Hemisphere. David in DC (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment David, seriously, you were wrong and you still are wrong: the changes happened after the closing of the AfD, not "during the pendency of the AfD". You don't like these sources...? This is another question. You wrote that after the AfD closing nothing changed, I noticed it was not so. You wrote (assuming good faith) something that was not true, I corrected it. That's all. After this epic fail I'm surprised you have not edited some exceptionally bad, "rude" and clearly contradicted statements as "Announcing "facts" that are not facts undermines the credibility of the announcer. Assumptions can be rebutted". In my 3000 edits I never received/made personal attacks nor I wanna begin today, so I invite you to be less aggressive, more polite and, above all, more cautious in what you write.--Cavarrone (talk) 08:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as the subject clearly passes GNG. It's quite rare that a pornographic performer having just one book mention, here we have a lot of book resources about the subject as: Pornography and sexual representation by Joseph W. Slade, The X factory by Anthony Petkovich (five pages), Skinflicks by David Jennings, The sexual century by Tom Hickman, Incredible Orgasms: Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yesss! by Marcelle Perks; she is also mentioned in Critical vision: random essays & tracts concerning sex, religion, death by David Kerekes and David Slater, in Pornography in America by Joseph W. Slade,  in Carnal Comics: The Inside Story of Art, Sex, and Porn Stars by Todd Loren, S. S. Crompton and Jay Allen Sanford and in a lot of comics-centered guides, enciclopedies and catalogs (as, ie, Comic Book Price Guide, p.144) in relation to the comic series of the same name of which was the subject and that she collaborated on the writing. She also appears in an article of The New Yorker. Not considering book-resources of less weight as Électre multimédia 1998, British Pornographic Film Actors or her portrait in the book Pornstar by Ian Gittler... or the fact she was one of the only 39 adult actors and actresses cited in the book Calendar of Historical Events, Births, Holidays and Observances. --Cavarrone (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I expanded the article and added several references from some of the sources listed above.--Cavarrone (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It pays to check. Here's the sum total about Sarah Jane Hamilton in the whole of the newly added ref, "Pornography and Sexual Representation Volume I": "...characters aimed at different genders, a diversification that continues today. Here are to be found gay comics by Craig Maynard (Up From Bondage), Gerald Conelan, and Allison Bechdel and unusual sex strips drawn around real-life porn stars like Annie Sprinkle (Rip Off Press) and Sarah Jane Hamilton (Renegade Press)..." (page 61).
 * Comment: False! see below --Cavarrone (talk) 09:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The only thing this source says about SJH is that she was once a porn star and that a porn comic strip once featured a character like her. Good heavens. My uncle was once a publisher and Spider-man features a leading character who's a publisher. Does my uncle's resemblence to Jonah Jameson or Stan Lee make HIM notable. I can't wait to tell him.
 * Perhaps before I do, I'll check the other newly inserted refs. David in DC (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, the ref was inserted as an alleged source for SJH being a female ejaculator, or from Britian. It's not clear which fact it allegedly sources. No matter. Does anyone see anything in the actual words about either Britain OR female ejaculation? Nope, me niether. David in DC (talk) 02:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: False! see below --Cavarrone (talk) 09:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was wrong about which facts this source backed. I did a bad job searching the book. I apologize. I'm duly chastened.David in DC (talk) 12:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Are these just being inserted on the assumption that no one will check them? The remaining insertions all source only the fact that she helped script a three-part comic strip about a fantasy versions of herself - in ancient England, Revolutionary France, and early Hollywood. One "source" is a review on a commercial online site that sells comic books, for heaven's sake. I'm trying to maintain an assumption of good faith, but it's sorely strained when I review these "sources". This is a BLP, for crying out loud. David in DC (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And another is a blog. Taken together, we've got a sum total of nothing. Fleeting mentions in books randomly strewn in text, have little or nothing to do with the text. A blog. A review of a comic strip on a commercial site. WP:SNOW? David in DC (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment David, I'm definitely convinced you are in bad faith, or more probably you have not digested my comments to your vote: your acid tone says everything. For God's sake, "My uncle was once a publisher and Spider-man features a leading character who's a publisher" is not exactly the same thing of being the main subject of a comic series and collaborating in writing it! About the personal attacks to my edits, what I made: I added to the article the statement: "She was also the subject and collaborated at writing of a three parts-Carnal Comics-series with her same name, published in 1994 by Revolutionary Comics", something I consider of some weight in her bio. All the references I added are about this fact, all support the verifiability of this fact. The "blog" is the personal blog of Jay Allen Sanford, the Revolutionary Comics cartoonist that was co-author and cartoonist of the comics. Yes, the atomicavenue link is a not reliable source, you are true, is there not to support GNG but just because I retained it was useful. If a reference is unclair or misplaced sorry, you can edit. You don't like them and consider them not significant? I was sure even before.--Cavarrone (talk) 08:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Further Comment After reading your insulting edit-summaries I verified what you wrote above, and you're still wrong! this is the correct extract from "Pornography and Sexual Representation", not the one you cited, as everyone can verify:! This is the second time you accuse me for something you have (assuming good faith...) not carefully verified, it the second time you insinuate (and not only, you wrote it in the edit summary) I am dishonest. I do not expect you that you apologize, I just hope, as I wrote above, that in the future you will be less aggressive, more polite, less nervous and more cautious in what you write. Best regards. --Cavarrone (talk) 09:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Apology a strikethrough of the part I got wrong above. David in DC (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comparison between date of first close/opening of second AfD. Sources subtracted. Not one added. David in DC (talk) 12:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I also see the Skinflicks book-source added.--Cavarrone (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Skinflicks was in the article before closing and, as I wrote above, shown to be a fleeting mention in sentence fragment "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" (page 294)." David in DC (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Same as last AfD. I believe she has enough coverage to be notable. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Dunno. We are always very, very soft on porn actresses (did I just make a bad pun?) - keeping articles where mainstream actresses would get deleted.  If we want to apply WP:PORNBIO then Delete, but if we want to try and stay consistent, then Keep.  I suspect we get a no-consensus though. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Subject clearly fails the relevant SNGs. The article includes no significant, reliably sourced biographical content. Three of the six refs used in the article show no more than that the subject cowrote a comic book about herself (or, more precisely, her porn industry persona). The "Skinflicks" book was self-published. Of the remaining pair, one mentions the subject only once in its 1000 or so pages, referring to "a demand for females who can ejaculate, a talent that has boosted the careers of 'rainwomen' like Nikki Charm, Fallon, and Sarah Jane Hamilton (aka Victoria Secret), all of whom can spurt liquids for Olympian distances"; the "X Factory" book is simply a compilation of interviews with porn performers whose only significant content regarding the subject that doesn't come from the subject herself seems to be "It's a undisputed turn-on seeing British bunnies like Sarah Jane Hamilton, Roxanne Hall, and Mrs. Sterling get stuffed far more literally than figuratively." Previous AFD was marred by participation by editors later banned for disruption (including the closer!) none of whom supported deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:02, 15 December 2011 (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.