Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tory Lane

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. Carlossuarez46 19:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tory Lane

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

Doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO. Hasn't received any awards, isn't notable in a particular sub-genre, isn't particularly prolific, and hasn't been covered in the mainstream press. PornWatcher 06:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Nominated for AVN Female Starlet of the year, XRCO Female performer of the year, FAME Favorite Oral Star, FAME Favorite Anal Star among others Corpx 07:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:PORNBIO says if a person meets any one the given criteria, they generally meet the notability standards. All those nominations would qualify as a "serious contender for a well-known award", as said in the first dot point in WP:PORNBIO#Valid criteria. Spellcast 11:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Corpx and Spellcast. Tabercil 15:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Corpx. She meets the notability criterium -- fdewaele, 22 July 2007, 18:10 (CET)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 15:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, she's won awards and thus meets notability for porn actors. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Well, wait a minute, TenPoundHammer, the articles above don't say she's won any awards --- just nominated.

    Thank you, Corpx, for the links. If she really has been a "serious contender" for these awards, then, sure, I'd grant she meets WP:PORNBIO, and I'd be willing to withdraw the AfD.

    However, the first link listed devotes a whole of two sentences (one short paragraph) in a page-long article; she was one of fifteen contenders for the award described. In the second article, she is listed as being nominated for three awards, but each award has five nominees, and there is no separate text describing Ms. Lane's chances. The third article is similar; she is listed as nominated for two awards (among eight each), and there is no prose mentioning her.

    Is this really the collective judgment --- that these articles describe her as a serious contender for these awards? Could you all please comment further to this effect? Thanks. PornWatcher 20:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Isnt being nominated the same as being "a serious contender"? It narrows your odds down from all the pornstars to 5 or 6? Corpx 21:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I can appreciate your view that anyone who is nominated is a serious contender, but I respectfully disagree. Maybe this is a good analogy: suppose you've made the men's 100 meter dash finals at the Olympics (one among eight runners). Does that instantly make you a "serious contender" for the gold medal? What if you're in the race with Carl Lewis, Ben Johnson, Maurice Green, and Asafa Powell? Are you still a serious contender for the gold? I don't think so.*** But perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point. Cheers, PornWatcher 18:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC) (I also can't help but to add that for one of the awards, Ms. Lane was one among 18.)
  • ***That is, absent further information. Maybe you're Donovan Bailey, and you've got a shot; maybe you're Aziz Zakari, and you don't. But that's my point here: we don't have further information as to Ms. Lane's real chances as to winning any of those awards. The only information we have is that she didn't win. PornWatcher 18:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I dont think that's a valid comparison, because for most sports, there is very little subjectivity involved in picking a winner. The fastest person in a race wins, period. Team that scores the most points wins. For any award, the winner is chosen subjectively by voters, so its not easy to predict - just like the Oscars or Emmys. (Also, the consensus is that all olympians are notable, because they're competing at the highest level). Corpx 18:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, good point. Would a more apt comparison be to all-star voting for major league baseball? Each team gets one nominee per position (14 in AL, 16 in NL per position). So, for instance, there were 14 nominees for the third baseman in the AL, but I don't think there was any doubt that Alex Rodriguez was going to win the voting. Were the other 13 serious contenders? PornWatcher 18:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, some all star selections are pretty set due to fan popularity, just like how Yao would be the starting center in the NBA all star game. I dont think you can say quite the same for awards that are chosen by a panel of experts (like Oscars or Emmys), which would be more applicable in this case. Corpx 18:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. But if baseball used a panel of experts instead of fans, would all 14 nominees for third base still be serious contenders?

    And to come back to your earlier point about objective criteria for choosing an award winner, say for "AVN starlet of the year," don't things like video sales numbers, size of fan base, and contracts for endorsements (if there is such a thing) come into play? PornWatcher 18:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  • In the baseball example, the entire pool of candidates for the award is 14 (assuming one player has started most of games leading up to All Star Game). I dont think the pool for this award is quite narrow in this case. Corpx 19:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, so you're saying that Ms. Lane was a serious contender for those awards with 5 or 6 nominees, but not a serious contender when there are many nominees (around 14 or so). For instance, you say she was a serious contender for the XRCO female performer of the year (five nominees), but (by the all-star standard) she was not a serious contender for the AVN female starlet of the year (fifteen nominees). Would you say she was a serious contender for the FAME favorite oral or anal star (with eight nominees each)? PornWatcher 04:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Somebody mentioned on the WP:PORNBIO talk page that FAME awrd nominees were chosen in rounds, so if she made it to the final round, then I'd say yes. I'd say there are hundreds, if not thousands of porn stars out there that do "oral or anal", so being narrowed from that list to 8 would make her a serious contender for the award. Corpx 05:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I just wish to interject that Tory was nominated for awards by three distinct groups. Tabercil 19:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I think I had lost track of that. Multiple, independent nominations certainly lends credence to the idea that she's notable. PornWatcher 04:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Ummm, she hasn't won any awards. She's just been nominated; that's what's being discussed here. Could you add to your reasoning? Thanks, PornWatcher 18:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • From PORNBIO: "Performer has won or been a serious contender for..." thus, AVN nominations count. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I should clarify: it's the "thus" in your last sentence that's under discussion here. That is, you're arguing that being nominated automatically qualifies as being a serious contender. Do you have anything further to add? Thanks, PornWatcher 04:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment (perhaps my last ;) In WP:PORNBIO, does anyone recall why the phrase "serious contender for an award" was used when the concensus in this AfD is for the simpler "nominated for an award"? Perhaps it's time for a change to WP:PORNBIO? PornWatcher 04:59, 25 July 2007 (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.