Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cody 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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Cody Lane
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Repeatedly created article despite multiple csd a7s needs a deletion discussion to avoid future recreations. Last creator bypassed the salt by creating article under another name which was eventually moved back to salted name. Pornographic actress fails both WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. Little to trivial coverage in reliable sources. No notable award nominations in consecutive years. No unique contributions to the field of pornography. Not features in mainstream media. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and further salt per nom. Should someone be looking into why an admin allowed the article to be recreated with so many BLP concerns?  Dismas |(talk) 08:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – We all make mistakes.  ttonyb  (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete – Fails WP:PORNBIO.  ttonyb (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. I recreated the article assuming good faith from an established user.  No need to release the hounds.  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. If this article gets deleted I swear to God I am gonna request a deletion of the hundreds of other pornographic non notable actors stubs in Wikipedia. On the other hand, Cody Lane is a well known porn star with over 100 title and one as director in the market. I disagree on the double standard that is taking place here. I have the feeling the article is being discriminated on the basis of it being pornographic in nature. Thanks--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You should probably read WP:POINT. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How am I disrupting Wikipedia? You are making me sound like I am trolling. My inclusion of this article was made on pure good faith. This is just another classic symptom of WPeism...anything that doesn't fit the liking of an editor is immediately accused of some kind of WP:something just to validate or make invalid a contribution. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "If this article gets deleted I swear to God I am gonna request a deletion of the hundreds of other pornographic non notable actors stubs in Wikipedia". I guarantee that if you go do something reactionary like that, you will get blocked or even banned. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Tell me something I don't know buddy --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Before you make claims like "I have the feeling the article is being discriminated on the basis of it being pornographic in nature", you should check the contribution histories of MorbidThoughts and I. We've put a significant amount of work into the pornography articles here.  And there wouldn't be a WikiProject Pornography if there were some sort of bias against pornographic articles.  Dismas |(talk) 01:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per all of the above. Also make sure no traces of the unproven alternate name remain in visible logs etc. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG with no RS coverage. Also fails WP:PORNBIO. The number of films does not establish notability. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, no enough in-depth coverage secondary sources to even overturn a BLP PROD, has to go. doom gaze   (talk)  18:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.