Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Jessie


 * 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. Michig (talk) 08:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Sarah Jessie

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The tone of the article leaves much to be desired, but more importantly, the article claims that Ms. Jessie has been nominated for AVN awards, yet neither of the sources in the article state such thing. I tried Googling for award noms (not just AVN noms) myself and couldn't find any. Contested prod (although I didn't originally post the prod).  Erpert  Who is this guy? 02:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 02:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Herzlicheboy (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Herzlicheboy (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom's analysis. Her claim of notability fails verifiability. Cavarrone 07:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I prodded the article. To paraphrase my prod rationale: ...fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Claim of AVN Award nominations appears to be false. Lacks significant coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 11:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per the sound and accurate analysis of the original PROD, which was removed for spurious reasons by the article creator. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC).
 * Keep. Clearly notable, has plenty of sources, and plenty more to be found on line and in the libraries.  This article has plenty of room for expansion.  Give this article a chance.  Wikipedia is better for it. Herzlicheboy (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The article's "sources" are a press release from a modelling agency and an image gallery. Neither supports the content in the article. If there are plenty more sources, please produce them. My searches of Google News and Google Books found nothing substantial. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't buy that there are "plenty of sources" as I was unable to find any. And I doubt any will be found in libraries. Sorry, but fails WP:PORNBIO. Beerest355 Talk 15:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, and to clear up any confusion, Herzlicheboy is the article's creator. Beerest355 Talk 15:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * AGF, Herzlicheboy is a newbie, so I bet he simply found several false positives in his searches. There are a lot of sources for "Sarah Jessie", just Google Books gives 1160 results, but the problem is that these "Sarah Jessie" results have nothing to do with this specific person. I suggest the article creator to take a look at our guidelines, specifically WP:GNG, to understand which type of coverage is required for a claim of notability. Cavarrone 17:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm not really proficient at using the google search engine. But I know there have to be many print and reliable sources for this lady.  Anyone that watches tons of porn will know that this lady is definitely notable.  How can we show that? Herzlicheboy (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Gene93k. The tone of this article is... off. It also fails #2 and #3 of WP:PORNBIO, and whether or not it fails #1 is currently in question. If there are "many print and reliable sources" then please add them. And we don't want Wikipedia to become too technical - not everyone watches tons of porn. Note: currently the only "keep" rationale is from the article's creator. &mdash; kikichugirl  inquire 21:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. WELL, I hate to be contrarian, but I must take issue with your unfounded assertion that "not everyone watches tons of porn." I am pretty sure that the vast majority of Wikipedians (who are almost exclusively white males between 16 and 25) do, in fact, watch "tons of porn."  If you, for some reason do not, you are plainly missing out.  That probably explains why you argue to delete good articles such as this and Mike Adriano. Herzlicheboy (talk) 01:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith has already been mentioned in this debate. It should apply here too. And WP:No personal attacks applies to the edit summary for your statement. Let's keep it civil. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You should be able to have an article that shows the person is notable without having to have done anything beforehand. If I show some random guy who doesn't watch porn the Randy Spears article, he'll be able to tell why he is notable. If I show him this article, he won't have a clue. Simply saying "it's notable" isn't going to work. I also would like to say that I'm much older than 25. Beerest355 Talk 04:54, 5 August 2013 (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.