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. Primarily per arguments by DGG and K.e.coffman. An interview is not a WP:RS, and WP:PORNBIO has not been met. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Sophie Dee

Sophie Dee (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Fails pornbio and gng Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep as per sources on Google [1] (Granted not all are perfect however notability looks to be there), Anyway has has won significant and notable awards, Meets PORNBIO #1 and #2 and meets GNG. – Davey2010 ^Talk 20:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• One more time: a raw GNews dump is of little value without identifying the quality hits with significant coverage. In the first page of results, Wales Online appears to be the only significant RS and that one can be considered primary. As for the awards, Urban X and NightMoves Award wins almost never establish PORNBIO #1 notability at AfD. Also, FAME Awards winners have been deleted at recent AfD debates. Minor roles in mainstream shows don't meet the "featured in" test for PORNBIO #2. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] - There's also Daily Star/Sun/Daily Mail sources which personally I'd use but hey ho, Anyway not all are perfect however coverage and notability is there, Well I disagree IMHO the awards are notable and thus she does meet PORNBIO, Anywho regardless of PORNBIO she certainly meets BASIC/GNG. – Davey2010 ^Talk 21:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Here a summary of the 12 links you listed: 1. Addictivo365.com - pictorial; 2. Wales Online - already noted above; 3. NJ105.com - trivial mention; 4. Autoevolution.com - trivial mention; 5. Wales Online again - 4 sentences about a proposed TV documentary. Not distinct from link #2. 6. El Grafico - incidental mention; 7. Daily Star - not even mentioned, article is about Maria Osawa; 8. El Sol - A Saturday's Girl blurb; 9. Los Angeles Magazine - passing mention; 10. Houston Press - trivial mention; 11. Clizbeats.com - trivial mention; 12. AVN - listings in 2 republished press releases. Several passing mentions don't add up to significant coverage. I also suggest caution about using sources like The Daily Star. (Did you hear the one about the SAS sniper who took out the flamethrower-wielding ISIS executioner from a mile away?) Independent reliable source coverage appears to be pretty thin. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply

As I've said not all are great however notability is there, Thanks, – Davey2010 ^Talk 02:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep It's close, but I think this scrapes by on GNG, whether or not the awards meet PORNBIO. I've taken two external links added by another editor after the AfD was filed (one from Los Angeles Magazine and one from Wales Online) and made them proper refs. They show that she's been covered in multiple, independent reliable sources beyond the porn press. David in DC ( talk) 17:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- the links above are not convincing, mostly being tabloid-like coverage. For example, Wales Online source is an interview, titled "Porn star Sophie Dee on golf, walking her dogs and coming back to Wales for fish and chips in the park with her dad". This is basically trivia. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The purpose of PORNBIO is to compensate for the typically extensive coverage, usually i questionable sources. I see it as a deliberate limitation on the GNG in this area; as we have the right to make what guidelines we please and qhat exceptions we please, we have the right to make this special case if there is consensus,,and there has been. There was extensive discussion about this case, and the Special guideline has clear consensus. We should not be overriding it for an very borderline article like this--indeed, the dubious nature ofthe sources as discussed above shows the need for the special guideline. I recognize we might choose to over-ride it in a case with esecially strong ,edia coverage--but this is just the opposite. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails GNG. The long list of stacked links above is most unimpressive. Carrite ( talk) 14:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply

This passage deserves to be immortalized from the "Walk Her Dogs" article being touted as a source counting towards GNG: In her free time, she has discovered a passion for golf, though she doesn’t yet have a handicap. “I can shoot 200 yards. I almost got a hole-in-one once. It was super close but the ball bounced out of the hole. It kind of counts.” Carrite ( talk) 14:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply

I agree they're not perfect and I have scrapped the barrel no doubt about it however there are a few indepth coverage in reliable sources so thus she does meet GNG although only by a bare inch. – Davey2010 ^Talk 15:26, 12 June 2017 (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.