Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AVN Award for All-Girl Performer of the Year


 * 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. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

AVN Award for All-Girl Performer of the Year

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This "product" produced by AVN Magazine (Adult Video News) is not covered in independent reliable sources and uses only industry related promotional materials, and one twitter feed for references. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion WP:PROMO. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP Steve Quinn (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 03:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 03:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 03:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 03:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Our core content policy Verifiability requires that we "base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." A third-party source is "one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered". This article about an Adult Video News pornography award has six references, all of which are published by the AVN. These sources do not meet the policy requirements for verifiability. I made a good faith search for reliable, independent sources covering this award and found nothing. Therefore, the article fails the General notability guideline as well. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Why is the nominator calling everything a "product"? And maybe you can slow down on trying to clear out all the porn articles, please. (I also don't see how WP:CORP comes into play.)  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 16:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The nominator has taken two porn-related articles to AFD over the last month or so. That hardly qualifies as "trying to clear out all the porn articles". Casting aspersions who take articles you created to AFD is clearly not appropriate behaviour. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , please read Notability (organizations and companies), and please also refrain from creating articles lacking third party (independent) sources. Thank you. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The person above you doesn't deserve a response, but Cullen, maybe you should read the history. This isn't a new article; it was created in March 2015.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 22:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Creating articles lacking third party (independent) sources wasn't appropriate in March 2015, either. And you need, once again, to conform to WP:NPA. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 12:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have nothing to add to Cullen's detailed and accurate analysis beyond kudos. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a list, a simple sub-article in order to shorten and relieve the main article, just like the other Performer categories. That's just a matter of structure. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 08:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't know we have "sub-articles" on Wikipedia. I never heard of stand-alone sub-articles. Per GNG there are stand-alone articles, but nothing about sub-articles. H-m-m-m-m. How does shortening and relieving the main article satisfy GNG? How does being a "matter of structure" satisfy GNG, and ORG? Steve Quinn (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that I don't always know the right words to use in :en as I'm from the German Wikipedia and just occasionally stepped across that, yeah let me call it a crusade. I'm not even that much interested in porn articles and only might here and there rarly read some of them, but I felt I had to do something against that unmatched actions.
 * So how would you call an article like that? Because, technically it could be part of the main article but that might cost a bit too much place. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sam, I did not know your opinion was posted by a someone who is from the German Wikipedia. I apologize for thinking you naturally speak English. However, your English is very good. What I meant is this is an article just like any other article - it is a Main space article and it does not claim to be a List article - although I suppose it could appear to be a list article. And list articles are also mainspace articles. I am guessing you have the same on the German Wikipedia. Welcome to English Wikipedia. And you are always welcome to post your opinion at AfDs. I wish I had the ability to participate in German Wikipedia AfDs, that would be fun, but I don't speak German. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's OK. I just wanted to point out that I might not be too experienced with technical terms from the English Wikipedia. Yeah, using a dictionary I'm able to find the right words and phrases, usually. However, is there a formal difference between lists and articles, e. g. with the requirements for notability? Because if not it wouldn't matter if it was a list. If there is a difference theoretically we will just need to rename it as List of winners of the AVN Award for All-Girl Performer of the Year?
 * Actually, in the German Wikipedia articles like this one are mostly considered removals/transfers from the main article for pure place reasons and therefore don't need to meet any relevance criteria (the German requirements for articles) on their own as long as the main article does. The sense would be to have the place to properly discuss the issue of the AVN Awards in a well-arranged way while the many winners are listed in linked sub-articles per category. (It's not already like that with AVN Award, but it has been the aim in the past.) Also the nomenclature would probably be de:AVN Award/All-Girl Performer of the Year (not existing) just like de:Seinfeld/Episodenliste in order to show that articles belong together but in fact the naming (with or without list) won't make any difference (e. g. de:Ballon d'Or is a featured list). They are considered lists, and – as you might know – lists can be made on so many trivial things. Would you say that statistic articles like List of awards received by Britney Spears or List of Borussia Dortmund players meat GNG?
 * Finally, little Fun Fact: The German relevance criteria for pornographic performers have been existing since 2008. While they have originally been much stricter than the English criteria for many years they will now – without any change (except for excluding scene awards) – propably be loosier than the English ones. ;) --SamWinchester000 (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * P. S.: I've noticed that the English article Ballon d'Or is a featured list as well (without saying "list" in the title). --SamWinchester000 (talk) 08:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The requirements for List articles are the same for prose articles - both must have topics that meet the notability criteria WP:LIST. In this instance, whether the article is "list" or "prose" we would probably be having this AfD anyway. And from your blurb at the end, it appears that "List" in the title is not necessary. It does make senses. For example, I use to think it was necessary to bold the title in the first line in the intro of the article. Then someone pointed out "No need to bold title in intro; see WP:BOLDTITLE, which explains that we only bold the title in the intro if it is a "formal or widely accepted name" . So, I guess the point is, all these little editing items are not set in stone and the WP:MOS takes this into account.


 * I think what you are calling "removals/transfers" on German Wikipedia, are called "Article spinoffs" on En. Wikipedia WP:SPINOFF. As far as I can tell, this article is not one of those. Even if it were, it must meet the standards for a stand alone article per GNG, ORG, wp:product, and so on. Pertaining to the Britney Spears article - the topic appears to be notable by establishing, yes, she is Britney Spears :):) and she was, at first, nominated for Grammy awards (in 2000) and then won some notable awards (beginning in 2005). Pertaining to the "List of Borussia Dortmund players" - I have to wonder if this merits its own article. I can agree that this team is probably notable, but the criteria for listing these players seems arbitrary (I am chuckling about this). I think we should move the demarcation to 107 games :) Steve Quinn (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, per samwinchester. Pwolit iets (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- no 3rd party references and none were presented at this AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to AVN Award, per WP:PRESERVE. SST  flyer  08:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nothing to preserve - Non notable award for well ... non notable people, FAILS GNG .– Davey 2010 Talk 21:45, 11 September 2016 (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.

Comment - page archived to: http://archive.is/7FvDx

You can revive the article in the future by retrieving the former contents there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.119.99 (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)