Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lanny Barby


 * 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. Michig (talk) 07:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Lanny Barby

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete A non-notable pornstar with just 136 movies (per iafd). With no major award wins, no mainstream popularity, no revolutionary contributions to the porn industry, this page fails WP:PORNBIO. Her one possibly unique contribution to porn was having sex with her half-sister Kimberly Franklin on-camera, but Lanny's page doesn't even acknowledge this relationship. Redban (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator's generally accurate analysis. That supposedly "unique contribution" lacks genuinely reliable sourcing and is likely a bit of creepier-than-usual kayfabe. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: Relevancy is reduced by now, but note that a 2007 AfD (keep result) occurred at Articles for deletion/Lanny Barbie.--Milowent • hasspoken  17:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - passes WP:PORNBIO + WP:GNG. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  17:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * How does she pass PORNBIO, since she has no awards, only nominations, and other significant claims? Which of the article sources do you believe meet GBG requirements? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - encyclopedic. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   21:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Unexplained vote that must carry minimal worth in this Afd. Redban (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - win, so passes WP:PORNBIO + WP:GNG. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   13:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "win"? what win? She hasn't won any awards. Redban (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep: Based on sum total of coverage, nominations, Penthouse pet appearance, none of which may be sufficient in a vacuum by themselves. I am also troubled by Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents in terms of evaluating the nomination.--Milowent • hasspoken  16:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete None of the keep votes has adduced any substantive coverage and are pretty much unevidenced assertion. This is a BLP that is inadequat5ely sourced. Needs deleting. Spartaz Humbug! 22:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - winning an industry award does not negate PORNBIO's mainstream notability requirement.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 06:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , most category-specific guidelines (including this one) are assumed to confer notability if the subject meets any of the criteria. That is, if she does meet PORNBIO (1), then she wouldn't need to meet (2) or (3) for notability to be assumed. The question is if she meets any of PORNBIO and/or meets all of WP:GNG. Consider a closely related category-specific guideline, WP:AUTHOR. If a person meets AUTHOR (1) in that the person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors, then would it make sense to deny them notability simply because they didn't meet (2), The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique? The criteria in category-specific notability guidelines are generally check-pass, unless noted otherwise.  09:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 15:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In other words, the smut industry has learned to game Wikipedia for endless free advertizing.  This, I submit, should not pass.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I really don't think that's what's happening here. Regardless, if you think PORNBIO is too lenient, you can open a discussion on the talk page or add to the similar discussion already in progress. I think it's fine as is but you're more than welcome to raise an issue if you disgree.  22:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, most of the Keep votes above overlook the fact that this person doesn't have much in the way of independent secondary coverage, and doesn't even meet the absurdly permissive WP:PORNBIO notability criteria. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC).
 * Comment Based on the PORNBIO criteria, yes, it's a delete. But "absurdly permissive"?  If anything, the notability restrictions for adult performers are absurdly RESTRICTIVE.  You have to win an award, but it can't be just any award -- no body or scene awards (never mind the fact that most porn stars are famous because of their bodies or how well they perform certain acts) -- and it has to be the right organization that presents the award.  Never mind the fact that the vast majority of "mainstream" actors have no awards whatsoever, but porn performers are being held to a higher standard simply because they are porn performers.  Anyway, yes, based on the exclusive standards, delete. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I have already voted to delete but I want to nail down this argument that the subject meets PORNBIO. There is no indication whatsoever that she does. The two keep votes that assert she does are founded on fantasy. PORNBIO requires:
 * Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration.
 * Not met - nominations only
 * Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or is a member of an industry Hall of Fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent.
 * Not met - no evidence in article or afd that this is case
 * Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.
 * Not met -= no evidence in article or afd that this is the case.
 * Please can we close down this discussion now and just delete this article? Spartaz Humbug! 12:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete: Subject of the article obviously fails WP:PORNBIO. I have no idea of how the subject meet WP:PORNBIO. The basic criteria required to merit a page had been clearly stated here. However, the fact that the nominator of the page had an issue at WP:ANI is not a concern but the failure of the article to meet WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 19:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clearly fails on all three criteria of PORNBIO. No notable individual awards nor any other notable presence. -- fdewaele, 29 December 2014, 17:04 CET.
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Becky Sayles (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2014 (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.