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 Consensus to delete The majority of participants made strong policy based arguments for deletion. Chillum 21:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturned by No Consensus upon review -- RoySmith (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Hess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article is about a woman who started a business in Portland, Oregon, USA where she hugs people for $60/hour. This article does not meet notability guidelines. A proper thing to do would either be deletion or redirect to Cuddling. All the references are about the novelty of cuddling, not Samantha Harris. There is not much depth in coverage and no coverage about her biography, such as if she has a Ph.D. in Cuddle Science from the University of Sydney Faculty of Medicine, Department of Cuddling (no such department or degree), or how she is a pioneer in the field of skin research. If the user's name creating the article was SamanthaHess, this user would have been blocked and the article deleted. That shows that the article should be deleted. Eating Glass Is Bad (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Redirect to Cuddling. Eating Glass Is Bad (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination is implication that you want the article deleted, so I've struck through this duplicate !vote. Note though, that a redirect doesn't necessitate deleting the article. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Should paid cuddling become a "thing", rather than a novelty, then there should be a page for it, and a possible redirect from Samantha Hess. As it is, this is almost a "single event", and definitely a novelty item. Time will tell. LaMona (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete as a WP:BLP1E - not quite as bad as Jasmine Tridevil but still something which only has a brief amount of news coverage, and not really enough long term sources to justify an article. I don't support a redirect to cuddling as she is not specifically and highly notable for that topic. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree that this is pretty much a WP:BLP1E case - most, if not quite all, of the sources come from the same period in late 2013/early 2014, indicative of the type of business that gets a good PR agent and some coverage and then fades away into the background again. No lasting notability, and therefore doesn't get over the bar of WP:GNG. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold on. First of all no one messaged me about it and second I talked to @OccultZone: I think (or was it @Randykitty:), and he said that it was fairly notable.--Mishae (talk) 07:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I admit it sounds odd but: First of all, BLP1E is irrelevant; someone having a profession is not an "event"--she does it on a continuing basis. It would be a single event if the coverage was based on a report of her having done one publicized session. Second, with respect to the academic degrees, academic degrees are nor required for an occupation to be notable, or for a person in an occupation to be notable., certainly not a personal services occupation. Anything can be made ridiculous by making it sound pretentious--I consider the nomination as in that respect prejudicial. Third, the nom has been blocked repeatedly as "clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia." Fourth, the refs seem to hold up: the CBC one is definitely about her. I do not even think the refs are just PR--a press agent may have called them to the attention of the reporters, but the reporters wrote their stories because they thought it would be of interest. Fifth, the requirement for inclusion in wikipedia isn notability, not lasting notability; once something is notable it remains notable for our purposes, we're a publication of record not a news digest. sixth, thinking about the service it actually makes a certain amount of sense. The article does need a little rewriting, but that doesn't require deletion. Incidentally, there 's an article for Cuddle party, not apparently related but a similar idea. DGG ( talk ) 11:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The nominator has been permanently blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Deadbeef 07:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also note Nominator is currently unblocked to request a change of username - they were blocked for their username not for their behaviour on the wiki. 11:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    • @Deadbeef: and @Neonchameleon: The nominator was in fact blocked for an inappropriate username, however his nomination shows that he is not here to contribute. I will forgive him though (read me statement on the bottom), but if he will continue to make such unwise nominations and covering it up with WP:1EVENT, I am sorry but his block for fake nomination wont be too far off. So far I assume good faith in the editor and am hoping that he is here to do as great amount of work not just randomly nominating articles for deletion in an attempt to punish admins who forced him to change his name. Plus, it is April fools day to randomly nominate articles for deletions either. :) I personally wont laugh if someone will nominate Samantha Hess for deletion on April fools day!--Mishae (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sufficient wp:RS to pass the GNG. wp:BLP1E isn't relevant here as it's not a single event. Neonchameleon (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also need to point out that the nominator thought that this article should be deleted because someone wrote an article on Samantha Harris no to long ago. I need to assume that it was an honest mistake by a nominator, however he still needs to nominate articles carefully and not assuming that if the previous article had the same first and/or last name it should be nominated without a hassle.--Mishae (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - From the sources it looks like this woman had 15 minutes of fame in the earlier part of this year. It's true that WP:BLP1E is a little hard to apply here because technically this isn't an "event" per se. That said, it seems pretty obvious that the spirit of BLP1E applies. NickCT (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Difference? I personally see WP:1EVENT rule being applied only to events, besides, I have added Business Insider refs and will probably find more. I should also point out that this AfD nomination was the nominators attempt on trolling since he was blocked for it and apparently left the project on November 30 of this year. If I would have been an admin I would have closed this AfD right now as keep per nominator's former trolling history.--Mishae (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2014 (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.