Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alycia 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 no consensus from the debate. A lack of sourcing is not an adequate reasoning for deletion, and Ms. Lane does appear to be known in more than one area. GlassCobra 08:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alycia Lane

Alycia Lane (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Clear WP:BLP1E situation. Only notable for a lone news event, and it's repercussions. Lawrence § t/e 03:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Consensus was reached the first time to keep this article; I see no reason to go through this process again when the community has already spoken and has voted to keep the article. Furthermore, subject is better known and more notable than a lot of subjects of articles in this encyclopedia. Jonneroo (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• That first time was in 2006 when we had vastly different standards. Lawrence § t/e 03:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, in the Philadelphia metropolitan area, Ms. Lane is pretty well-known. She is known for more than her arrest and termination, and she is known for more than the bikini pix. I wouldn't say that she is only known for one news event; she was known and recognized by Philadelphia residents (and the residents of other cities where she has been a local TV newsperson) well before her arrest. Jonneroo (talk) 04:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Then someone should be able to produce sources to that effect and post them here or the article. Failing that, it's clear BLP1E/notability deletion. Lawrence § t/e 04:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, as per Jonneroo's comments. Rollosmokes (talk) 04:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep An anchor on a major-market newscast for four years who took that notability and instead of using it for good, sent cheesecake bikini pictures that got the wife of whom she sent it to very rightfully mad, then after that assualted a police officer (and called her a gross slur) and blew any goodwill she had left in Philly television. The sourcing is more than there (amazing to me that the article is well-sourced after all of her content and her bio was pulled from KYW's site), and this case will drag on for years; likely someone will hire her for this notoriety in the future. Notability is not lost easily, and neither is noteriety. Nate • (chatter) 08:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You have a right to be angry at her. However that tends to argue against keeping the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't being angry at her, I was stating the facts of her career. Frankly I'd rather not have ever heard of her but what happened happened, and she brought herself to notability. Nate • (chatter) 07:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - as per nomination, an explicit example of WP:BLP1E. Generally, local news anchors are only considered notable if they've won notable awards (such as the Emmy) or have been pioneers in the industry (like Sharon Dahlonega Raiford Bush, for example). Lane has done neither, so her notability isn't independently established away from the bikini photo/arrest mess. The bikini/arrest thing is what has given her some degree of notability, although this is a clear case of WP:BLP1E. BWH76 (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It's hardly the case that she's only known for one event. Many local news personnel are considered sufficiently notable to have Wikipedia entries, and she's been notable in more than one market. JTRH (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - If she's "notable in more than one market," it should be listed in the article why this is so. Otherwise, I'm not sure if I agree with your opinion as it seems to be based upon the premise that other stuff exists. If her notability, aside from the bikini/arrest debacle, is documented in the article, I'd be happy to withdraw my opinion for delete. BWH76 (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Please provide the sources to this effect then. Lawrence § t/e 15:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BLP1E and general failure to satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note AFD is not a vote. If you say "Keep" for notability reasons, you need to provide sourcing to that effect. Lawrence § t/e 15:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Let me take this another way, then. If this needs to be AfD as non-notable, do these as well? Ernie Anastos, Roz Abrams, Diana Williams, Larry Kane, Larry Mendte. All of these people are primarily known as local news anchors associated with one major market. I'm offering these not as a defense of this article on the grounds that "other stuff exists," but rather in support of the idea that there's a clear consensus on Wikipedia that major-market local news anchors (such as Alycia Lane) are sufficiently notable per se to have articles associated with them. If you're going to AfD this, you should AfD those as well. And I'm going to have to decline the request to source the notability - I'm not going to have the time to devote to this before the AfD closes, and I'm only a minor contributor to this page as it is. JTRH (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be for deleting all of them except Larry Mendte, since he was the first host of Access Hollywood. I am going to go nominate them all now! --Cryptographic Slurm (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If they're notable, they will have multiple independent sources about them. In fact, I will be checking and AFDing those which do not. Being on TV is not inherently notable. Lawrence § t/e 16:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply: OK with me.JTRH (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Those all appear to have multiple independent coverage. One is a published author, another is a filmographer as well. They're fine. This one is a BLP coatrack mess. Lawrence § t/e 16:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'd rather see this article improved/better sourced than deleted, but I don't have the time nor do I feel that strongly about it. JTRH (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, per BWH76's notability standard, Lane has won an emmy. Which has now been referenced in the article. The sheer magnitude of references indicates that she is notable, and the WP:BLP1E argument fails once it is acknowledged that she is an award-winning news anchor who has worked in three very large tv markets (NYC, Miami, Philly) on major networks. Or stated differently: Which one event are people proposing is the one that gives her insufficient notability? Mitico (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

IMO, [1] is enough on its own to derive notability. Mitico (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, she's clearly notable for more than just one event. --Pixelface (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep adequately notable on her own. JJL (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep She is (or atleast was) an award winning news anchor in a major market. And in Philly news anchors are just about the biggest celebrities in the city (other than athletes). Also, she's notable for more than one event, I count atleast two - Rich Eisen bikini-gate, and the whole hitting a cop thing. Bjewiki (Talk) 01:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Lane got an Emmy award, a local one for sure, but nevertheless an Emmy. Which leads me to the assumption that a certain degree of notability may be attributed to her, regardless of any Bikini photos, or her conflict with a NY police officer, which wouldn't have received that degree of coverage if she hadn't been notable in the first place. --Catgut (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Just being known as a face on TV is not notable. The article said nothing about her style or ability as a newsperson. Too much weight is given to the two minor incidents, which only goes to show there is nothing else interesting to say about her. Although I do wish her well. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. She was notable before the event (though, unfortunately, not for entirely positive things); most importantly, she was an evening anchor on prominent TV station in a major market. If the Foundation received a complaint from her or something (which doesn't appear to be the case), then stub-ify the article and delete anything questionable or unsourced. I don't see the big deal.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, as the references cited in Alycia_Lane#References provide sufficient evidence of coverage in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of Alycia Lane's notability per the general notability guideline. Her local Emmy Award as described and referenced in Alycia_Lane#Career provides additional evidence of notability. John254 22:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete this article and all like them about local TV people. Just being on TV somewhere and a criminal elsewhere doesn't make you notable. --MRPL8 (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but Lane is the recipient of a prestigious award and the subject of news articles about several incidents, not just one (so WP:BLP1E doesn't apply, IMO, although the "controversies" section should be given less weight).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back

MRPL8 is likely a sockpuppet of User:Spotteddogsdotorg, an indefinitely blocked user. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The arguments for deleting her seem to outweigh those to keep her. She is just a bloody newsreader. --Exoz (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the user above has made very few other edits to the encyclopedia. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Exoz is likely a sockpuppet of User:Spotteddogsdotorg, an indefinitely blocked user. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete She slapped a cop and called her a dyke and got fired for it. Should there be bios of every TV bimbo who did something criminal and got fired? No, unless they killed the Pope or something. --Cryptographic Slurm (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

On first inspection, this user appears to be a sockpuppet of User:MRPL8 --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2008 (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.