Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sammie Rhodes (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 keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sammie Rhodes

Sammie Rhodes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable porn actress. No coverage in reliable sources, thus no verifiability. Has not won any awards. Despite the 6 award nominations listed in the article, she has only been nominated for an award once ("Best Solo Sex Scene"). Fails WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. Valrith 23:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, on account of relative notability. The AVNs, according to the appropriate article, are comparable to the Oscars for the pornographic video industry - so that she was nominated certainly says something. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The "Solo Scene" nomination is currently enough to pass WP:PORNBIO, plus the "All Girl" scene nominations currently count as actress award nominations. Reliable sources are provided in the article. Epbr123 07:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 23:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't normally like just nominations for awards as a qualifier of notability, but there are quite a lot of them; also I found some sources, and expanded the article a bit. Several different sources decided she was notable enough to write reasonable length articles about. Between the sources and the many nominations, I think she qualifies for an article here. Also, I am impressed that she is a former honor student who credits pornography for straightening out her life; that's not a notability qualifier, but interesting none the less. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Impressive expansion of the article by AnonEMouse. I had looked at her article today and was puzzled why the article was nominated for deletion. Then I looked at the history... Vinh1313 18:27, 20 September 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.