Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Roxx


 * 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   speedy delete. G4 per Articles for deletion/Rachel Roxxx Courcelles 22:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Rachel Roxx

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Appears to fail WP:PORNBIO.  ttonyb (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Appears is speculation. I will copy my arguments from the discussion site.
 * She passes porn criteria PORNBIO in groundbreaking or blockbuster feature Big Tits at School 1&2 (AVN Award winning) and This Ain’t...-series from Hustler. The article has 6 international wikis, so that´s a prove she is well-known around the world.
 * Look how much Google hits she has to see the relevance...1,46 million sites.
 * She is well-known and famous in the industry, has multible articles (+100) on AVN.com, the hoster of the AVN Award, 45 scenes for Brazzers (2nd behind Shyla Stylez Link) and she worked for all big networks and companies. She hasn´t won a award yet, but Audrey Bitoni and Jenaveve Jolie also.
 * Just look at the 6 international wiki articles. It´s curious, that she passes relevance criteria in these wikis, even if they are harder, than in the english wiki, right?
 * She even has a TV film with Rachel Starr (named on her), it´s short, but makes her more relevant. A Night with Rachel Starr and Rachel Roxxx
 * By the way, look at 35 pics of Rachel Roxxx on Wikipedia Commons, she has a lot of pics, could you think why?
 * So these are all facts to Keep the article. --Hixteilchen (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment – So let's look at each one of your claims.
 * Just because a series has won an AVN Award, it is not necessarily a ground breaking. I find nothing in the article that supports the series that mentions it as a "groundbreaking or blockbuster feature".  So no she does not meet this criteria.  BTW - popularity has little or nothing to do with establishing Wikipedia based notability.
 * The name "Rachel Roxx" in quotes (as well as her real name "Rachel Roxxx") has far less than the number of Ghits than you indicate. If one removes the duplicate or similar Ghits the number is closer to 650.  However, Ghits are irrelevant.  Per WP:GOOGLE, "Hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability."
 * If she has significant coverage in articles and they meet WP:RS criteria, please add add few to the article. Perhaps that would sway the discussion to a "Keep" resolution. IT should be noted that AVN.com may not be considered to be mainstream media.  As far as the two other "stars" you mentioned, one has "...received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years" and one has been featured in Penthouse.
 * The article in the other projects have no relevance here. Each article must stand on its own merits.
 * The reason she has so many images is that some has uploaded them. If you note few are used in any articles.
 * Your reasons hardly support the keeping of the article. ttonyb (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Her real name in porn is Rachel Roxxx, but I didn´t use that name, because I knew someone would want to speedy delete it. So click on the Google link. --Hixteilchen (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – As stated above, Ghits are irrelevant. Per WP:GOOGLE, "Hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability."  ttonyb (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment But it´s an indicator of prominence of a person. By the way AVN has news in it´s name, and it´s the best news source for porn in the web, so you can´t say it´s not relevant I think. So my intention was, if you add all points together, you can see the relevance of the person. And my oppinion is she meets this criteria. --Hixteilchen (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - G4; see edit history of Rachel Roxxx which shows afd. author admits he recreated article with different spelling to circumvent speedy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete was declinded by admin, view version history! This is a completly new article with new sources in it.--(talk)--Hixteilchen (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – Just to be clear, the article was denied a Speedy Deletion on the basis of a db-person, not a db-repost.  ttonyb  (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2010 (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.