Deletion of Heather Harmon (2nd nomination)

Comment: A thoroughly and independently verified non-stub is only possible with significant coverage in -worthy reliable sources. ''That'' is the test of notability, and as is evident by the paltry amount of sourced content the article evinces, this topic has failed it. It is irresponsible of us to retain a biography in such circumstances
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: does not pass the requirements set out at .  While there is some web coverage, the requirement is that the person have "mainstream" media coverage (ie that they have been talked about in sources ''beyond'' those that focus on the porn industry
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PORNBIO)

Comment: why are we stuck on the argument as to whether Heather Harmon meets ? The GNG page clearly states that  is an acceptable alternative guideline. So  if  is where we should be focusing our attention, why hasn't a '''single person''' mentioned this to me?  I've posted the Basic Criteria on the talk page. In brief it states "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." That only means that the "subject" needs one reliable source with substantial coverage to attain notability." So how does this related to the article at hand? Heather does not have one single with in-depth written coverage about her like a biography.  For cases like this there's an exception: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability" and this is where we are at now. Now here's where the bottom drops out: "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." I've made arguments both here and on WT:OR#Interviews_as_Primary_Sources|WT:No original research, stating that interviews are to be considered a ''mixture'' of primary and secondary sources.  Since the interviewer's introduction and questions are written well in advance of the interview based on independent research of available sources, they should be considered a secondary source.  If I were to take the interview's introduction and delete the interview text, what would you be left with?  ''An article about the subject.'' I can see how interviews are considered only as primary sources because the current guidelines say they are, however I have had this same discussion on WT:OR#Interviews_as_Primary_Sources|WT:NOR and a consensus was reached on this. Go there and read it for yourself, or even just sit around and think about it for a while, it '''makes sense
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BIO)

Comment: this is one of those rare circumstances when common sense can override the GNG (if deemed necessary).  Harmon's internet popularity is pretty evident, so the only question is "is that enough?"  I say that in this case, yes it is.  I am well aware that popularity and notability aren't the same thing, and indeed I might argue against popularity-based notability in most cases.  However, with an entertainer their real world notability is usually based on their popularity and thus I think it is a valid metric for Wikipedia as well.  As noted, Harmon also meets  #2.  Finally, I disagree that interviews can't be used to establish notability - an interview in a reliable publication should count.  Non-notable people are not normally interviewed, as normally a publication wants to attract readers which is done by publishing information of interest to its readers
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ENT)