Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XBIZ Award for Best Actress—Parody Release

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. No evidence has been provided that the award in question is notable enough to merit an article, given that no independent or reliable sources were offered - or even stated to exist. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

XBIZ Award for Best Actress—Parody Release

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

Recently contrived niche award without significant reliable independent coverage. Little more than negligible generic text coupled with oversize performer images. Wikipedia is not an image gallery. Similar award pages have been/are being deleted without much controversy. Exactly zero independent sourcing; the Daily Sport page cite is just a cut-and-paste copy of a promotional press release, replicating even its typos ("Couple's"). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Calling big budget porn parodies (or porn acting awards in general) a niche is a bad lie. Just keep spreading your personally made up opinion. Moreover, other deletions based on no explanation but only counting (narrow) votings, mean or establish nothing. Regarding your "uncontroversial": I'm just too tired to waste my time with disputing these random counting decisions, as porn is really not even nearly my favourite Wikipedia topic, but I'm somehow unintentionally stuck here, thanks to your AfD inflation. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing "personally made up" about the opinion that article subjects should have significant coverage in indepedent reliable sources. It's the long established consensus. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Our core content policy Verifiability says that we must "base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Most of the sources in this article are published by XBIZ itself so are not third-party, and also fail to establish Notability. The Sunday Sport reference is to a blatantly unreliable source that routinely publishes lies just for the fun of it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't believe Cullen328's last sentence then take a look at the image in the infobox at Sunday Sport. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources and no reliable sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, er samwinchester.Pwolit iets (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PERX - No issues with you agreeing with anyone however you need to put a bit more than just per x. –Davey2010^Talk 22:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All sources are XBIZ .... so clearly the award isn't notable outside of XBIZ itself, I can't find any evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' -- no independent reliable sources available. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2016 (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.