Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award

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. (non-admin closure) Mr. Guye (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award[edit]

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

It has been asserted that pornographic awards with an article are prima facie non notable enough to meet WP:ANYBIO. Surely if an award is notable enough to meet the standard of an article it is notable enough to meet the standard of WP:ANYBIO. If they are not notable enough to meet the criteria of ANYBIO then it would follow they are not notable enough to meet the standard of a basic article. I am WP:BOLDly testing this double standard through practical application. Savonneux (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ANYBIO requires the award to be "well-known and significant" which is a higher standard than simply being notable. The fact that people assert erroneously otherwise is not reason to open an AfD to make a WP:POINT. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N 'Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large.' Presumably that meets "well-known and significant" all in one go. WP:ORG essentially asserts the same thing with more specific examples. Also I'm not doing anything WP:POINTy, all the sources of that article are press releases or from one industry related magazine. That is a failure of WP:ORG. Remember WP:AGF.--Savonneux (talk) 06:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are misinterpreting the notability guidelines. Notability requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity". To demand that an award is well known or significant (in importance) is a higher standard. You are applying their interpretation one in the same and making a POINT: "When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently." Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUD attention solely from ... media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability Maybe it's just me but Adult Video News doesn't seem to be a general interest publication. WP:ORG verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization. "Your search - "Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award" - did not match any news results.--Savonneux (talk) 09:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Keep Award seems notable, which is the only requirement it needs to meet to qualify for an encyclopedia article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NOTE: I have extensively edited the article in question here recently. The FAME Awards were a "well-known", fan-based adult film industry award ceremony (similar in nature to the People's Choice Awards) where hundreds of thousands of adults voted online in a two-step nomination & award process. These awards (many of which were in "significant" award categories) were given out to a virtual whos-who of the modern adult film industry. The awards have received coverage in other trade magazines (such as XBIZ & AVN) in the adult film industry.

As was basically discussed above, this AfD was apparently caused by a basic misunderstanding of the way that the inclusion guidelines for adult film performers work here on Wikipedia. Guy1890 (talk) 07:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear failure to meet the GNG. All sourcing is promotional and associated with the award ceremony itself; all of those heavily "About the 200x Awards" are overt PR feeds, including links to buy award ceremony tickets, program advertising, etc. The ostensible awarding organization, "Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment", never really existed. Instead, this is one of several attempts by AVN's parent company to make money staging a second awards show and selling sponsorships, tables, tickets, etc., and ultimately get a broadcast/netcast deal -- which never happened. "Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment" gets only a handful of GNews hits, even fewer GBooks hits, and no GScholar hits, undeniable indications that these astroturfed "fan awards" are not treated as significant by independent, reliable sources -- which is the fundamental requirement for notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per improvements showing it as notable to its industry and genre, just as for different genres we accept notability for Academy Awards or Grammy Awards or similar. That they were created by Genesis, Adam & Eve, WantedList, Playboy Radio and AVN, is no more or less a deciding factor than the Academy Awards being created by and to serve their not-independent Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences or the Grammys being created by and to serve their not-independent National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences. Such act as a means for respective genres to pay homage to those in their respective media. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Schmidt. The reasoning that all the sourcing is promotional because it is all about pornography is incorrect. The awards were reported on by XBIZ, for example, which was not a sponsor of the awards. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Several of the keep arguments are just plain incomprehensible. This article has no independent sourcing, despite eight years of efforts. It may have 20 references, but 15 of them are to archived versions of its own already-defunct website; four are to press releases and announcements posted by its principal sponsor; and the last is a barely retouched version of a press release originally posted on the awards own site (see original text here [1]). We wouldn't accept a bio based on this kind of sourcing; articles on organizations with the level of self-sourcing are routinely speedied, and there's no reason to carve out an exemption for awards of any type. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:43, 30 August 2015 (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.