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. v/r - TP 21:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Harmon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Topic fails WP:GNG and the article content is an assortment of unreliable sources. The last AFD saw assertions like "one of the first amateur adult stars on the internet with a significant following", which I cant find any sources other than the interview published by the same person who commented at the AFD. They may have been one of the first to have an amateur porn website that took off, however only an idiot would assert that the internet didnt have amateur porn stars with a significant following until 2000. In any case, "first <x> porn on the internet" is not a reason for notability, just like "first <x> porn on video" and "first <x> porn photograph" are not. The distribution media is not a relevant aspect of the notability for porn. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Three fundamental objections: the lack of independent sourcing, the lack of encyclopedia-worthiness, and the spammy, promotional content. What was the name of that website again? One more time??? Got it! (Please have your credit card ready!) Carrite (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per unencyclopedic content and lack of reliable third party sources. Wikipedia doesn't need a page for every pornstar in the universe. SwisterTwister (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I disagree with nominator that pioneers in porn are not notable. However I agree that this article should be deleted because there are no reliable sources to support the claim that she is a pioneer, nor to support the article in general. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Morbidthoughts' sound analysis, more detailed in the 2nd AFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not only she was a pioneer (which would make her notable) there are reliable sources in the article... Interviews like this one, where SoHo (magazine) is the source. I do think the article shouldn't be using her site with the scanned version, but instead quote directly the magazine. The article needs adjustments, not deletion. Maddox (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is the same SoHo magazine that has the wikipedia article. Its reliability is completely unknown for notability purposes. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2011 (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.