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. FYI: A discussion can not be closed as "Soft Deletion" if there are any Keep votes. If an editor wants to work on a draft of this article, contact me or go to WP:REFUND and know you'll need to submit it to AFC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poppy Morgan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

How has this survived the raised expectations around porn performers. The sourcing is well below GNG for a BLP. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and England. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: a few years ago, a group of users has managed to create a consensus that states that pornographic entertainers are basically not notable for what they do (their awards do not count, the coverage from the industry does not count, etc.). OK. But this actress might meet GNG: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/hull-porn-star-poppy-morgan-2877489 ; https://www.anorak.co.uk/377943/celebrities/hull-mps-want-page-3-banned-but-the-official-brochure-says-poppy-morgan-is-part-of-the-city-culture.html ; https://www.expressandstar.com/news/2006/11/23/porn-star-to-teach-dancers/ as these sources mention that her notability as porn star exists outside WP and outside the industry. At least, that's how I see things. And I consider her notable enough to have a page. If any ATD exists, feel free to redirect. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for proving my point with non reliable sources Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You're welcome. Thank you for providing a link showing these sources are non-reliable according to a clear consensus. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Seriously? Ha ha ha

  so a tabloid. A short article with no byline on an online news source with no indication of fact checking and a very short piece on a local news sources that allows user submitted content that has no byline. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's what I thought. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So you agree they are not RSs! Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That was not what I meant. "ha ha ha" - so a tabloid is not exactly what I would call a thoughtful reply containing a link nor referring to a clear consensus. But here's a link and a consensus. Wp:Tabloid states that well-established tabloids should be used with care. The Mirror is a well-established tabloid. I wouldn't call it plainly unreliable (and if the other 2 aren't bylined, this one is). These are not great sources, especially the other 2, but read my !vote and you might understand what I mean. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Tabloids are not reliable sources for the gng but may be used with caution to flesh out an article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Going through those sources, really was reading them for the articles! Still, for mind, she doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete/Draftify - Mushy Yank provides enough sources to suggest that the subject potentially could be notable, but they aren't enough to meet GNG or warrant keeping this article. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 18:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There really isn't much of any kind of coverage, outside of [1]. AVN wins are fine, but we don't count them towards notability, so there is no sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Other example of coverage: The Yorkshire Post (bylined article in a very respectable newspaper) also states she's a notable pornographic actress. And that's exactly my point. I don't wish to challenge the decision on this Wikipedia to have an insanely high bar for notability of personalities from the pornographic industry, but, then, GNG requirements should apply to them in all fairness. Not to mention the fact that the city of Hull has found her notable enough to have her figuring in one of their official brochures! (Not that they would have had a hard time finding notable people associated with Hull) (read presented articles). I'll leave it at that.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:38, 12 July 2024 (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.