Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Roxxx (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 keep. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Roxxx

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These marginal pornstar BLPs really need to be shown the door. This article was deleted only a short time ago, a deletion that was upheld at a DRV (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 12). Unfortunately, someone took it upon themselves to recreate this tripe because she was nominated for a few AVN awards this year. The problem is that the shaky criteria for this is WP:PORNBIO, the legitimacy of which is in dispute, as its bar for inclusion is rather low. Since the subject of this article fails the WP:GNG and IMO WP:PORNBIO is inapplicable, this needs to be deleted and salted to prevent further abuse. I am especially sickened by this "neener neener" told you so! childishness posted by a porn bio proponent, 2 weeks after the DRV closed. Marginal BLPs are a sore enough subject as it is; they should not be tossed around like glorified trophies. Tarc (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:ANYBIO - "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." (emphasis mine) Tabercil (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AVN is not "a well-known and significant award or honor", that is the point herel it has no meaning or importance outside the closed circle that is the porn industry. The idea that the porn industry can nominate and award little gold stars for itself, and that somehow proves notability, is just ludicrous. This "we make our own notability thresholds" standard needs to be eliminated. Tarc (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and so do the books and newspapers. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. This nomination has the stink of WP:IDONTLIKEIT all over it.SPNic (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I rather enjoy a little T&A, Racquel Darrian in particular. I just want there to be articles where their notability is crystal-clear, rather than articles lie these which seem to be created for advertising purposes. Tarc (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AVN and AFDB are unreliable, as with virtually all porn-related publications they do not break the kayfabe and report fiction and PR as fact. The only independent reliable (for some values of reliable) source is a mention in a listing page for a Howard Stern show, which is nowhere near this person having been the primary focus of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. As the nominator implies, we appear to be accepting a lower standard of sourcing for porn "star" biographies on the basis that virtually none of them have ever achieved any mainstream attention. That might just about cut it for Pokemon but these are (notionally) WP:BLPs, although most of them are more fictional character bios. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? So I interpret your argument right, then Variety can't be used for actor and movie-related articles and Billboard can't be used for music and musician-articles? Because according to the New York Times, that's what AVN is: "an industry magazine that is to pornographic films what the trade publication Billboard is to records." Tabercil (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. If WP:PORNBIO and WP:ANYBIO support it, then it should be included; if they shouldn't support it, then they should be modified accordingly so they don't, and then the articles no longer supported can be AfD'd. In the meantime, trying to circumvent them because they shouldn't qualify an article for inclusion, IMHO, isn't quite kosher. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes PORNBIO. AVN Awardss are the top awards of the genre, reported by multiple newspapers every year around January, and is televised by Showtime so the argument they are not well-known is weak. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tabercil, Morbidthoughts, and SPNic. AVNs are the awards for a multi-billion dollar industry. It's not fly-by-night or awarded by some unknown web site. Dismas|^(talk) 18:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trout nominator - Per WP:NOTCENSORED —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barts1a (talk • contribs) 23:02, December 4, 2010
Keep per Morbidthoughts & Tabercil Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:PORNBIO and WP:ANYBIO through multiple nominations of notable awards significant to that genre. It would seem reasonable that AVN Magazine would be just as acceptable for verfying the results of their various awards just as are the Screen Actors Guild in verifying their own SAG Awards, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists in verifying their own AFTRA Awards, and the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in verifying their own Academy Awards. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This nomination has the stink of WP:IDONTLIKEIT all over it. Tarc, I would call this a own-goal.--Hixteilchen (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete im not going to go in the validity of having a biography on a glorifeid prostitute on wikiepdia. while there asre some porners like Jenna Jameson that have legitimate mainstream coverage in the mainstream media, there are also hunrdedds of porn stars whose names arent really known or covered outside of porn industry blogs and random little dinky ratholes on the Net. one criteria that we need to remember is WP:N and WP:V. especially the later, its difficult to find verifiable sources on these porn people because half the time the article writers dont even bother to find their real names or to figure out what fake name theyre using to whore. this isnt necessarily a disaster except that they rarely bother to find sources that cover this that would meet ANY standard of notability currently upeld by Wikipedia. articles like pople on Rahcel Roxx are only marginally more notable than your average garage band and posting articles on every hooker in California isnt going to fly unless you can find sources to verify some of these comments, which also dangerously push up on WP:BLP without reliable sources. to reiterate, this article should be deleted and ONLY rercreated once verifiable, WP:RSs are detected. User:Smith Jones 19:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know, reading through that, I get a distinct feeling that the tl;dr version of your argument is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As noted, she is notable per the standards established for this kind of article on/by Wikipedia. If you don't think she should be, then propose a change to the criteria, don't go calling for "Speedy Delete"s on articles that meet those standards in an effort to get them changed. In addition, as mentioned before, it's WP:COMMONSENSE that AVN is a WP:RS with regard to the AVN Awards. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's just me but I don't see how I'm supposed to take your points seriously when you can't put aside your personal moral objections to Roxxx and others in her field. So, why not try that again without the ad hominem attacks and keep a WP:CIVIL tongue next time. As for "not bothering to find their real names", would you make the same accusations against those who write about John Wayne, Jon Stewart, Cary Grant, Marilyn Monroe, Martin Sheen, Nicholas Cage, Nathan Lane, or Diane Keaton and refer to them by their stage names? Dismas|^(talk) 02:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it's probably just you, because i have never said or implied anything like that. I dont have any personal moral objections to Roxxx or anyone involved in the pornographic industr.y Unlike many politicians and business tycoons, she at least has never killed anyon, never robbed anyone, never violated someone elses rights or despoiled the environment. i might not perosnaly care much for pornography but compared to some of the things that other people who have articles do she might as well be a saint.
however, my personal feelings -- and YOURS -- are irrelevant. And nice try with that list of names. Unlike this article, the articles for Cary Grant, Marilyn Monroe, and Martin Sheen bother to mention those people's real names. This article does not. It uses her stage name (Rachel Roxxx) and no one has bothered to produce any source that actually contains her real name. I totally get why the article is called Rachel Roxxx and why it would use that name, but in the other articles the person's REAL name is also at least briefly mentioned in the bio box. this oversight would be completely unacceptable with any article on any one else other than a porn star, but for some reason on the topic of porn actresses every attempt at verifiability and WP:BLP goes out the window for some reason. I really don't understand why articles on porn stars are always so shoddy and poorly substantiated, but it's getting really annoying. regardless o whether or not you think that their industry is good or not, it's disrespectful to them -- and more important, the reader to have such sparse and poorly-sourced articles on them. User:Smith Jones 03:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well for one thing, they use pseudonyms for a reason. Y'know, something about there being a nasty stigma associated by some people about pornography. And there are porn star articles where their real names were redacted at the star's request. One recent example I can name offhand: Flower Tucci. And there's an nice lil' OTRS ticket behind it as well. Tabercil (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You think you're being civil when you call her a whore ("...theyre using to whore.") and suggest that she's a hooker ("...posting articles on every hooker")? But really, why is listing a legal name so important? It has nothing to do with their notability. Dismas|^(talk) 04:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Now is the time to snap the pornographers' stranglehold on wikipedia. [1] Let's send a message tonight.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err...I have no idea what to say to this, other than I have no idea what those two are talking about, and that's a pretty clear WP:IDONTLIKEIT vote. Not to mention...let's say it again...the article meets ALL of Wikipedia's own standards for inclusion. Not to mention that saying we should delete an article to "send a message" smacks of WP:POINTY. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 07:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Popular article, probably gets more hits daily than 95% of all articles, exists on many wikis, has sufficient sourcing to show notability. Has three XXXs in last name, I think that has some deep literary meaning.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 07:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - AVN spam - not notable woman being used for promotion of a industry award. Off2riorob (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No more AVN apam than an article about some one receiving a BAFTA award is BAFTA spam when the awards are listed. Listing and verifying one's awards is exactly as encouraged by guideline to show notability per WP:ANYBIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, a better analogy would be a comic convention nomination for "Best New Superhero Comic of the Year" being used to assert notability for someone's comic book. A circle-jerk of you-congratulate-me-and-I'll-congratulate-you is not suitable for notability, and I do not feel that ANYBIO's "significant nomination" criteria was meant for this kind of low-hanging fruit. Tarc (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could easily make the same case against the Oscars, or the Golden Globes, or... IMHO, (a) winning an major industry award, or (b) being nominated for multipe major industry awards, is a strong argument for notability, and she satisfies (b). And, as has been pointed out multiple times, according to Wikipedia's own standards she is notable. Whether or not those standards are valid is not a subject for AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the Oscars have a much longer-established history of notability and easily demonstrable significance. These "what about X?" arguments are really weak, bordering on pathetic. Tarc (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So how many years must an award be in existence for it to be notable, according to you. Dismas|^(talk) 17:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this proves notability, I was so shocked I had to do a screengrab of it!!!1--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it doesn't matte the # of years, the real issue is MAINSTREAM media coverage in recognzied and respcted WP:RS and WP:N sources. the problem here is that, unlike other porn actresses w ho have articles, her entire noabiltiy exists within a very small niche that has little mainstream coverage. I could create an award for unnotable garage bands and nominate every single garage band 100x and it still wouldnt be okay. User:Smith Jones 18:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot the linked piece -- having trouble getting this one to come up again. [2]--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/reply to Milowent -- according to WP:AUTO, the merest fact that the subjet of this WP:BLP is also an editor on Wikeipida is even more of a reason why this article should be subject to the fullest cruinty of policy. We cant just take on credit that everything anyone says about themselves is true and the risk of WP:COI if she edits her own article extensively or particpates in the debate above and beyond a regular user is great. User:Smith Jones 18:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:...I'm calling shenanigans on Milowent's posted "pictures". There is no User:Rachel Roxxx on wikipedia, and I really, really doubt that the Wikimedia Foundation would allow the language in that second note to appear! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the wording is suspiciously similar to this, legit, fundraiser ad. ~~Milowent,~~ I'm all for assuming good faith, but what evidence do we have that ~~you~~these images haven't been photoshopped ~~those images~~ in a WP:POINTY attempt to get this article deleted? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I !voted keep above, so I don't want to get it deleted. Beyond that, you are right that it seems very suspicious.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. In that case, my apologies for directing POINTY accusations your way, then. But yeah, this stinks, and badly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject fails WP:PORNBIO, since she has received no awards, only one nomination as an actor/performer; nominations for scenes are not classified as performer nominations by AVN itself, and are listed separately from actor/performer nominations by AVN itself. Subject fails WP:ANYBIO, since AVN Awards are not generally "well-known" and "significant". Perhaps their top awards might fall under that description, but no one can reasonably argue that all 75 pages [3] worth of nominations qualify, across-the-board. And it's very hard to argue the significance or independence of those awards, since if you review the magazine's online archives it becomes pretty clear that the awards are closely associated with advertising purchases - pull a random issue and you'll likely see that 90-95% of the releases with half-page ads or larger end up with nominations. The subject pretty clearly fails the GNG, and there's no sign of enough verifiable content to construct an encyclopedic article from. I'm also struck by the frequency with which porn performers whose articles are deleted pick up these noms, making me wonder about marketing campaigns. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please assume more good fiath sirr; while I do not agree with those who would want to ekep this article on Wikipedia, its also unfair to intimate that they are working for some company or are paid shills of the porn idnustry. I believe that everyone on either sid eof this debate means well and is tryin to aplly policies are fairly and as chivalricly as possible. User:Smith Jones 03:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.Reply. That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that there might be some shenanigans going on with the award noms. Certainly there are porn promoters out there trying to use Wikipedia as a marketing tool -- see a recent runin I had with one of them over the Vicky Vette article [4] -- and I wonder if there are a few attempts to game Wikipedia decisions. I don't think the "paid shills" are right here, but they may be savvy enough to try to affect the outcomes in discussions like this one. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.Reply and Apology - my apologies then i misinterpreted what you were asaying. I have no doubt that their corrupt forces outsides of the Wiki who seek to influence our proces for political or economic gian. while i do not think that any editor here reading this is part of any dishoenst or devious campaigning, i have also no doubt that there are corrupt forces outside of the Wiki who seek to manipulate this process for their own selfish purposes, and that they might be beyond these unnotable restrictions on our editorial containment.
.Sincere apologies -- I would also like to apologize for the vandalism and hatreful comments made by the thuggish editor User:96.44.132.23, an non-reggie "editor" who has threatened to kill you or your grandkids on your page in order to win a content dispute on your talk page. this is beyond the pale and i am reprehensed by this behavior. User:Smith Jones 17:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Biography without substantial sources, only spam from the porn industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy1964 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MichaelQSchmidt, Morbidthoughts and Tabercil. Please stick to policy based arguments. Whether AVN is an acceptable source or not has been discussed many times before without any consensus against it. So there is not point to start that discussion over and over again in every second AfD. Whether pornographic actors in general should have articles in Wikipedia or not is also no question to be discussed here. Testales (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the above and as per last time and as per policy. Testales makes a couple of good points. --78.101.253.29 (talk) 09:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.