Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tory Lane (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 delete. czar ⨹ 21:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tory Lane

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

Uncelebrated pornstar who fails WP:Pornbio, as the rules clearly exempt awards for scenes. She also has not starred in any blockblusters or made any unique contributions to porn. She has no substantial coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Redban (talk) 08:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Redban (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reason to keep an article like this.--TMD Talk Page. 15:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, encyclopedic. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 20:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained vote that must have minimal worth in this Afd.Redban (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TMD's vote seems to be the same. Let's leave double standards behind. --Λeternus ^(talk) 22:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and I'm not logging in with my user name because of this topic, but using an IP should not detract from my one !vote here. She's notable enough that I've heard of her and I seriously haven't watched porn in over 10 years (yes, truly). I actually did come to this article because I had heard a rumor of what college she went to and was curious if it really was true. If I came here for a non-porn reason, I'm sure others have as well. The only delete I see is "I don't like it" and that covers no weight at all, even less than "encyclopedic". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.85.208.225 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 19 December 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only minor or scene-related award wins. Falls short of WP:GNG without non-trivial coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. Porn industry press mainly consists of announcements and warmed over press releases. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gene93k's accurate analysis. Just a promotional BLP without reliably sourced biographical content. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a BLP but falls far short of the necessary standard of sourcing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:08, 20 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.