Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AVN Award for BBW Performer of the Year

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to AVN Award. Consensus appears to be that the sources offered either don't display significant coverage to establish notability or are not independent, and that the Shepherd Express is not considered sufficient to establish notability. The claim of Pwolit iets that Google results are "sufficiently notable" does not appear to offer any evidence. There was a suggestion of a redirect by one of the keep !voters and a support for a possible merger, which appear to be reasonable options to facilitate restoring the article in case independent sources should appear, thus I'll go for this - it's functionally equivalent to deletion anyway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AVN Award for BBW Performer of the Year[edit]

AVN Award for BBW Performer of the Year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This "product" produced by AVN Magazine (Adult Video News) is not covered in independent reliable sources and uses only industry related promotional materials for references WP:PROMO. Fails WP:GNG. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC):[reply]
No one has ever said, and no guidelines say, primary sources are prohibited. It is just they are not applicable when determining notability. Per GNG - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article...". The sources are not reliable because they are vested in the industry, and consist of passing mentions for this award. The sources are also not reliable because these are AVN (Adult News Video), private corporation, produced publications, which are not independent of the subject. In this context, comparing this to the Michelin Guide is well, no comparison. That article shows that Michelin Guide has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are indeed independent of the subject. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because the sources are independent of Michelin Guide. Which is the article title. Which is the subject. AVN Award for BBW Performer of the Year is the subject here (pornography isn't, sorry), and there indeed are independent sources. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For GNG, the sources are supposed to be independent of the topic, which in this case is the content pertaining to Michelin Guide; it has nothing to with the title. The function of a title is to distinguish one article from another article; is the name of the file by which Wikipedia electronically stores and sorts the article on a server, the name under which it is categorized; the name by which it is is found in recent changes and on a watchlist; and serves as the distinguishing part of the url; and so on - see WP:TITLE first, and then footnote #2.
Multiple independent sources serve to demonstrate a given topic's notability, not to demonstrate the title the article per WP:SIGCOV. From the page you cited, I don't how you came up with the comment you wrote. Also, I really don't know how you switched from "BBW Performer of the Year" to "pornography" as the subject. No one said pornography is the subject. Only you have.
And the end of your statement, "and there are indeed independent sources" is vague and does not refer to anything specific. To what exactly are you referring? Independent sources pertaining to the Moon? or the planet Venus? It is not clear to what you are referring. For this particular product ("Performer of the Year"), there are no independent reliable sources available which is a requirement for satisfying GNG. This product has not been demonstrated to be a notable topic sufficient for a stand alone article - see WP:NRV and WP:WHYN. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And, in your above post you have acknowledged these are "primary sources" that are used to source this article. "Primary sources" in this context are not independent of the subject. It is probably not the correct meaning anyway, in that all the references are somehow affiliated, in that they are not independent, and serve as promotion rather than serving a neutral point of view. WP:NOV. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I did a google search and found the results sufficiently notable. Pwolit iets (talk) 10:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate if you could post several of your sufficiently notable results here. Sorry to say, but the proof is in the pudding, and the pudding here is several sufficiently notable results. Also, are you indicating that "results" are the same as "sources"? Thanks in advance. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DEL8 as not meeting GNG: I could find little nontrivial independent coverage worth mentioning with the possible exception of the Fleshbot and X Critic pieces, and they're not anywhere near enough. There is nothing wrong with using press releases and other non-independent sources on occasion, but such sources do not count towards the notability requirement. Rebbing 11:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum: I think the Shepherd Express article counts as significant coverage in a reliable and independent source. Unfortunately, there isn't much else: The Fleshbot piece, while likely reliable, offers little more than a passing mention. The same goes for the Daily Dot article that interviewed Ms. Karla Lane. (Remember her from last week's AFD party?) The X Critic piece squarely addresses the award but not in depth; moreover, its reliability is doubtful: the lack of copy-editing alone suggests that X Critic lacks any meaningful editorial oversight. Therefore, my vote remains the same, but I thought it appropriate to acknowledge the source Erpert uncovered and to re-evaluate all of the coverage with an open mind. Rebbing 03:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete literally only primary-sourced. I'm willing to be convinced that this particular award is noteworthy in the industry, by WP:RS (even in-industry) evidence being provided of it being noted - David Gerard (talk) 11:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the very sound arguments of Steve Quinn and Rebbing. No significant independent sourcing provided. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just added a source from mainstream publication Shepherd Express. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: the above publication is a free weekly; not sure it would be considered RS or SIGCOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a free weekly (above) is not sufficient independent RS coverage to meet the notability requirement for this award. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steve: Actually, I said primary sources aren't prohibited. Those kind of sources aren't all that's in the article. And you agree that pornography isn't the subject but then you argue that there aren't any independent sources in the article? The last time I checked, all the sources aren't from AVN.com. And as for the sources being affiliated...are you saying AVN is related to XCrtic, EnStars and Shepherd Express? If you can provide proof that they are, I'd love to see it.
    @K.e.coffman: Do you say the same thing about articles that source The Village Voice?
The thing is, the delete !voters are using reasoning that not only are inaccurate, but aren't even requirements. And the subject was already notable as-is, but now it's suddenly non-notable after more sources are added? Again, primary sources aren't prohibited, and non-industry sources wouldn't make sense because, frankly, they would have to be about a different topic. (And even if the article had zero sources, that wouldn't necessarily mean it would be deleted either.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 16:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Worst-case scenario, why couldn't this just be redirected to AVN Award? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 19:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Rebbing and User:k.e. Coffman. The Shepherd Express comes closest to a reliable source, but it is a local alternative weekly, and the coverage is meager. In any case, this being the only one close to an acceptable source is not enough. I also doubt X-Critic has much in the way of editorial oversight. User:Rebbing is correct in that the coverage is not sufficient. And besides that, it is closely affiliated to the porn industry in that it promotes porn videos on every page, besides its so called reviews (including graphic stills from the "reviewed" video) - which is another platform for promotion. Fleshbot is a blog and closely associated with the porn industry[1]. They were considering creating a porn award ceremony for promotional purposes, but I don't know what has become of that (quote: "That might mean more live events like the Fleshbot awards; it probably means even further alignment with the porn industry.") In any case, the coverage of this award is passing mention, inside an interview. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steve - fails GNG, No objections to merging if desired however there's no evidence of notability and therefore doesn't warrant an article. –Davey2010Talk 23:16, 7 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AVN_Award_for_BBW_Performer_of_the_Year&oldid=1068820835"