Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romi Rain

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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Romi Rain[edit]

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

Porn actress that fails WP:PORNBIO without qualifying awards and fails WP:GNG without significant coverage by reliable sources. Citations in the article don't support the content. Despite claims in the article, the only significant award win is a scene-related XBIZ Award. An independent search for sources yielded trivial mentions, cast listing and lots of press releases. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as tons of sources online[1] (Granted not all are brilliant however notability is certainly there), Has won a significent award and therefore passes PORNBIO #1 as well as GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most if not all of these hits consist of photos with captions, cast lists, and other passing mentions. Again, a raw GNews search dump is not helpful without identifying specific, non-trivial RS coverage. As for a significant award win, please identify it. NightMoves does not qualify. The actress has several AVN Award nominations but no wins. And scene-related award wins are excluded from PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Women in the porn biz won't get coverage from The Times and WaPo. Quick google search her name comes up in a Las Vegas Sun article [2] where she's mentioned in a way she's a name drop draw for the event. I'm sure she's notable in the porn biz, those that follow porn and their stars, but the RS by WP standards is thin at best. Cllgbksr (talk) 04:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ as per Davey2010, sheer volume of nominations, like Susan Lucci. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking more thoroughly, doesn't seem to be supported. Now I think it should be kicked back to Draft space with a deadline to improve. Draft space work is automatically deleted after a time if not improved. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's extremely accurate analysis. Laced with BLP violations, utterly phony citations and unreferenced publicist prose. This is not an article, but an act of vandalism. How brazen? The article claims the subject won four AVN Awards in 2017. Not only does AVN itself say she won none [3], but several of the categories she "won" in, like the "Fan Award : Best BJ Giver", don't even exist. Speedy Delete as G3, because other than identifying her as a porn performer, virtually everything else here is laced with "blatant and obvious misinformation" and because deliberately creating a deceptive article should be treated as vandalism. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
get rid even if kept (why? Its fails gng and pornbio) this article is full of untruths and nonsense and would need tnt - before that it needs sources. Has anyone found any yet? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After more searching can't find RS to substantiate this person's alleged notability. Cllgbksr (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article such as this which is riddled with falsehoods is a BLP violation which must be deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; problematic sourcing requires TNT at the very least. Montanabw^(talk) 10:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 15 May 2017 (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.