Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanessa Lane


 * 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. None of the keep !votes is even remotely policy-based Randykitty (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Vanessa Lane

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesnt meet GNG or PORNBIO. Spartaz Humbug! 07:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - notable. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   13:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note to Admin; discard the above per WP:ITSNOTABLE, please. Tarc (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO with one individual and three scene-related award nominations. Fails WP:GNG without significant coverage by multiple reliable sources. Even if you count the AVN profile as reliable, it's not enough by itself. Not finding additional RS coverage in search. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - 4 nominations, no wins, no coverage in reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Just checked the 11 O'clock news... There was a notable lack of mention as to how this page is causing cancer, burning houses down, or killing Lions with funny British names. With that said, Lane put her time in, did amazing work, and was recognized for said work. Yes, being nominated means something. Great that y'all can link to rules and regs demonstrating why Lane's wiki should be removed, and by those arbitrary bureaucratic standards I'm sure your horse is nice and high... But again, an astoundingly beautiful woman who was incredibly good at what she did, shouldn't be pitched into the internet waste bin because someone has a hair up there and is going to quote chapter and verse pointless rules. And please, let us avoid the well worn trail that is saying how we need to clean up the clutter on wiki. Starting with former porn stars out of the business for years shouldn't be above the fourteenth page and eight hundred and eighteenth edit on Ben Franklin's predilection for hookers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PiercingGreen10 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)  — PiercingGreen10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete per Gene93k's sound analysis, reinforced by tonight's evening news. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete for the above reasons. I'm not sure how The Golden Rule is "pointless." She may not be run-of-the-mill, but I don't find anything to show she is Wiki-worthy. Primefac (talk) 11:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per Gene93k's argument outlined above. Finnegas (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep . Craziest thing… Yesterday I stubbed my toe, was diagnosed with Stendhal syndrome (gotta stay way from those Jackson Pollock paintings!), and Microsoft finally took away my Zune stock because they just felt really bad, and I thought to myself… Yep, Vanessa Lane’s wiki, it’s gotta be Lane’s wiki! Cleary I’m a rookie at this, but with the hundreds, dare I say even thousands of entries on wiki, why is it necessary to delete this page? You hit the page down key once and you’ve passed the ending. Primefac is right in one regard, she’s hardly run of the mil, and that right there is reason enough that she is wiki worthy. Not to mention being recognized by her peers and working hard at being unique in an industry filled with clone techniques. So like yeah, what I said. -PiercingGreen10 — PiercingGreen10 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You already voted on August 8th, so the 2nd, "keep" from today has been struck. Continue to comment as you desire, but do not cast multiple votes, please; this isn't Chicago. Tarc (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Somewhat relevant D list "celebrity". She is an icon in the industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgboperative (talk • contribs) 16:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)  — Kgboperative (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete per Gene93 and my own search for sources which yielded nothing significant. If she were in fact an icon in the industry, there would be some coverage, surely. --bonadea contributions talk 17:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. My sweeps did not turn up anything.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Addition @Tarc – Okay, honestly didn’t know. Second, love the reference! @KGBOperative – I wouldn’t consider her D list anymore than I’d consider her A list, mainstream wise anyway. Related to porn, well there is no list she could be on with her abilities and looks being as such, but of course this is just an opinion, so I don’t want to violate the spirit or letter of the regs… Which everyone shares granted, I just admit it. Anywho, the shame of this is one, she actually has the acting chops to be a mainstream actress and two, she apparently talked about her interest in doing so at one point. Now is this iron clad reasoning surrounded by four walls and a ceiling that abide by the rules stated above perfectly? Not so much. So I suppose my beef is with this whole notion to begin with, let alone how this wiki entry shouldn't fall victim. However, clearly the iron clad reasoning I’ve given holds no water, sadly, despite the iron cladiness. @TheVanessaLaneWebResearchingChairs – Yeah no, just no. -PiercingGreen10


 * Delete. My internet detective skills find nothing about her on the Google. @PiercingGreen10 No, just no..--FlyingButterBall (talk) 05:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.102.49.198 (talk)  — 94.102.49.198 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete - Lacks substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Yes,, we are pointing to our policies and guidelines. These represent the community's consensus. The community agrees that no subject is notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Otherwise, Wikipedia would end up with articles on my 11th grade French teacher (a total hottie, BTW), the horrible garage band the 14 year old next door is starting up and your grandmother's jello salad recipe. If you believe those things should be included, along with this poorly sourced WP:BLP, feel free to start your own wiki project or work to change this one. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Addition. @FlyingButterBall – Clearly the gumshoes you’ve employed are long past retirement. @SummerPHD – ‘Substantial coverage in independent reliable sources.’ Welp, you’ve got me there. Clearly the standards for porno stars having wiki pages are a tall order when it comes to those like Lane and similar, who again, have entries that are complete before you hit the page down button once. Now, related to those examples you cited, I would gladly peruse an entry on your hot teacher, feel that that 14 year old may get his or her break on wiki, and will say you best not be busting on my gma’s recipes brah! Not just worthy of wiki, they’re worthy of Julia Child and that racist southern broad combined! In seriousness though, this logic is not beyond my simplistic mind. But how many pages should be scrubbed that more than meet all the criteria? And how many have been scrubbed that didn’t? My presence here now is because this entry may fall victim as an example of the latter. I’m not advocating that every person that films themselves doing something sexual should have a page… But those that were professionals in that field, and were recognized as such, not to mention the raw sexual energy and ability to contort herself into a pretzel with aplomb that Lane did so well, well, I’m just repeating myself now. Annnnyyyywho, having sufficiently won not just the battle but the war, the day, and the internet, ole Uncle PiercingGreen10 accepts your apologies and expects things to be left as they are. –PiercingGreen10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PiercingGreen10 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 14 August 2015 (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.