Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AVN Award for Best New Starlet


 * 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. The nomination and the "delete" side contend that the article fails WP:N and WP:V for having no substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent from the subject. This is an argument based in core policy, and it would need to be rebutted by the "keep" side with references to reliable sources that indeed provide the sort of coverage we require. However, I don't see "keep" opinions that actually cite any sources. Instead, they go on about how important the award is, how the "delete" side are prudes, etc. These opinions must be disregarded for not addressing the arguments for deletion, as must the ones that do not actually provide any arguments, or that insist that a special standard of sourcing should be applied to porn articles: there is no such exception in WP:V or other policies. Taking into account only opinions based in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, we have unanimous consensus to delete.  Sandstein  20:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

AVN Award for Best New Starlet

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This "product" produced by Adult News Video (AVN) has no coverage in independent and reliable (third party) sources. 51 out of 52 references are promotional AVN materials and are therefore do not qualify as independent coverage. The only other reference not so far mentioned provides only very brief passing mentions twice in the whole article. Fails GNG, CORP, ORGIND, and INHERITORG. Notability is not inherited. Wikipedia is not a directory and is not a repository per WP:DIRECTORY. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:37, 13 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) 02:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Are you serious? I keep getting speachless. This award is 30 years old, existing since the first AVN Awards, the 2nd highest honour a porn actress could ever get and has not randomly been the probably first award category to get an article here (more than 10 years ago). "[Brooklyn Lee won the coveted award for Best New Starlet at the 2012 AVN Awards."], says ABC. Once again, why should someone prove an award winner with a random news source instead of a watertight, complete and official list (your so called "product"). Also, even if there were no other sources (which is NOT the case) trivial statistic articles are extremely common. Please stop fantasizing about the opposite. UEFA Euro 2016 Group A consists of nothing but official UEFA sources. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 04:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I notice that your source has a barely passing mention of this award, maybe three words; five words if you include the name of the awardeee. This is not significant coverage per GNG. The age of the award and the age of this article has no relevance without sources that independently give significant coverage to this award, per WP:NRV. And unfortunately the watertight list you refer to is full of leaky holes when it comes to determining notability because these are not independent of the topic, in fact they are enmeshed.


 * As I wrote above, 51 out of 52 article references are AVN promotional materials, and AVN is the company that uses these awards to promote porn videos. It manufactures fantasy histories for its performers - even WikiProject Pornograhy says that. What you call random news sources, which sounds like indpendent sources to me, are exactly what is required to have a stand alone article on Wikipeida. To see why we have this criteria please see WP:WHYN.


 * I see that you wrote, "Even if there were no other sources (which is not the case)..." This is exactly the case. There are no reliable sources, which are the other sources you seem to be referring to - other than promotional materials that promote AVN as a company and magazine. Unfortunately, UEFA Euro 2016 Group A is not related at all to this discussion. There are many articles on Wikipedia that need work or to be deleted such as UEFA Euro 2016 Group A. This is not a rationale for keeping this or any article WP:OTHERCRAP.


 * It seems there is an unfamiliarity with notability criteria - as if any random assertion or source confers notability. I shouldn't have to write a wall of text to point out discrepancies regarding GNG or ORG and so on.
 * Steve Quinn (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I had noticed that I wouldn't feed the (actually pretty arragont) troll too much by wasting my time with satisfying his non-existant believes of Wikipedia list articles. So, I took a random serious source, noticed that it was only one sentence but didn't want to waste more of the time I've already so much wasted for nothing here (instead of writing the article of an Argentine 19th century politician I wanted to write weeks ago), hoped that your common sense would let you understand what it means when ABC calles your so called "product" (only the oldest AVN Award from a time, when there was definitely no popular porn promotion) "coveted" and mainly just wanted to go to sleep and would have prefered to never see this grotesque man-on-a-mission-AfD-hell again. Oh, and how hard is it to understand that sources report from a whole award and not single award categories? Btw, "which is not the case" was refering to research! At the same time I negated the need of such sources with "why should someone prove an award winner with a random news source instead of a watertight, complete and official list". --SamWinchester000 (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC) P. S.: Please try to delete the system football articles have established in many years. It won't work because it isn't porn.


 * Delete per WP:TNT. This is not an article, but a malformatted list, a coatrack to display preferred images of porn actresses. That its supporters think an image of Jenna Jameson in lingerie sticking her hand into her crotch has encyclopedic value is pretty telling. In no other field do we maintain articles in this format -- oversized images, nominee longlists, absence of meaningful text, etc. If this list is to be kept, it should be restored to a more normal format, like this version, rather than the current porn-only anomalous display format. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice insult: There is nothing prefered but fully historic. It isn't my fault that we only have one 90's photo of Jenna Jameson you have such a big problem with. I would wish to have a better one on Commons, but a 2008 photo for a 1995 honour is definitely not a better one... --SamWinchester000 (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment The image of Jenna Jameson sticking her hand in her crotch is the result of User:Guy1890's insistance that all photos in this catagory must have been taken in the year the performer won the award, regardless of how bad the photo is. I guess this is the only photo of Jenna Jameson that WikiCommons has of Jenna taken in 1996. Glenn Francis (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Quinn has obviously not done any research himself and merely has checked references created by the creator. This type of nomination causes fatigue in other editors as they are not forewarned about developments and may suddenly have to work-off schedule. That is obviously a sign of disrespect towards fellow editors by Steve Quinn. Also, articles such as sexophobia prove that an animus towards explicit forms of sexuality is not fiction, and such editors' eligibility for nominating or editing anything related to sexuality may be under question due to an inherent bias. In a nutshell, the reason this article should not be deleted for the same reason the BBC Sports Personality Of The Year shouldn't be - its the most prominent award in UK sport. Likewise, AVN and its derivatives constitute the most prominent award in the porn world. It goes without saying. I believe such a nomination is so out of the ordinary that its possible even newspapers or tabloids might find it worth reporting on it how odd it is. Lets ask Quinn whether he would accept the most prominent technology-related award-related article to be deleted from Wikipedia? No? What about eh most prominent body-building award? No? Sounds ridiculous right? Then why shouldn't this sound equally ridiculous? Its illogical nominations like this that make me consider quitting Wikipedia for good. Whats the point of creating content when editors purge content on the flimsiest of grounds. There should be a warning on the article creation page that the prevalence of deletionists on Wikipedia is actually quite surprisingly high. I've always been astonished by the logic (or is that illogic) employed by prudes. You would think if they dislike certain content they would try to avoid it. Instead what Wikipedia prudes do is they go after it relentlessly. As if it is their hallmark to attack anything representing the naked body. Pwolit iets (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you think I haven't done any research myself then prove this by producing reliable sources, which means independent of the subject, and significant coverage. Appealing to sympathy is not an effective argument for keeping an article - I can't seem to find "forewarning" and "work-off schedule" or "suddenly" in the notability criteria.
 * Phrases such as "sign of disrespect", "animus", "prudes" and "bias" as personal attacks are not convincing arguments for "keep" - I don't see these in the notability criteria. Also, the way you have confused sexuality with porn is a POV issue. Asserting this is the most prominent award for anything does not make it the most prominent, and is so far not backed up with independent reliable sourcing. Also, as per the above - notability is not inherited - for any product WP:INHERITORG.
 * Also, per WP: PRUDE - "we can't keep articles with topics that don't meet the notability criteria because we are not designed for indiscriminate collections of information and images WP:IINFO - a core content policy. Sorry about that." ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep 'Best New Starlet' is one of AVN's most important awards. This is Porn. Major reliable mainstream publications who fact-check and investigate everything they say do not regularly feature articles on porn - in fact it's very rare. And rarer still is any investigation or fact-checking because nobody really knows, or even really cares, what goes on in the porn industry including most of the people who are in it. Steve Quinn's insistence that only articles from reliable fact-checking Mainstream publications who are as clueless about the porn industry as a new-born baby are allowed to be sources. And since these types of sources who regularly run articles on porn are virtually non-existent, Quinn insists that since porn related articles are not sourced from non-existent sources, they should be deleted. And that is the basis of practically every one of Quinn's misguided arguments. Glenn Francis (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The wikipedia requirements for WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources do not get suspended because "Major reliable mainstream publications who fact-check and investigate everything they say do not regularly feature articles on porn". This goes along the lines of Special pleading and is generally discounted in deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I also agree with Wolfowitz's contention that the article format needs to change from the current style to one more in line with other articles. Tabercil (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Why shall e. g. every politician in a list of government posts have a photo helping the reader to understand their name but a winner of the highest award which he/she could reach in their entertainment genre shall have as less (so bad and of course only porn fans "satifying"...) photos as possible? --SamWinchester000 (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Article formatting is a maintenance edit. This is not a convincing argument for "Keep" based on content policies or notability guidelines. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - per arguments above. Subtropical -man   talk  (en-2)  17:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:PERX. – Davey 2010 Talk 00:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as non notable award, Fails GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 00:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as all pornography articles, you dont like it. Subtropical -man   talk  (en-2)  23:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * - This, This, This and This all indicate I do like pornography articles, Might be a good idea to read and fully understand WP:IDONTLIKEIT before accusing others of it. – Davey 2010 Talk 01:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- this is at best a list of those who received the award, and were nominated for it. The article says nothing meaningful about the award itself and no sources are provided that discuss the subject. I also note that 15 people are nominated each year, making the list of nominees essentially meaningless, making the article a WP:DIRECTORY / WP:PROMO page. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per DEL8 as clearly failing GNG, the relevant notability guideline. Feigned shock, polemics about deletionists and anti-sex bias, and inept comparisons to notable awards notwithstanding, there is simply no significant coverage of this subject in independent, plausibly-reliable sources. (Good Morning America 's description of the award as "coveted" is not significant coverage by any stretch of the imagination.) Also, there is nothing wrong with the article's use of primary sources: the problem is that primary sources do not count towards establishing notability. See WP:NRVE. I strongly suggest that the retention proponents make some minimal effort to locate independent sources that do more than mention the award in passing, as the existing votes are unconvincing. Cf. WP:NEXIST ("[O]nce an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface."). Rebb  ing  19:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - this could be considered a content fork for the AVN Awards for one of its most significant categories. The problem is, is it a WP:REDUNDANTFORK since the information is there in the page; just hard to quickly view year to year with the other categories there too? Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually considering the extra information in the individual articles are nominations and photos, I'm going to vote delete. Wikipedia is not a gallery and the nominations can viewed from the main page through the external links to the archived AVN pages or individual years' articles. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Verifiability is a core content policy and it states that we need to "base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The vast majority of the references in this article are published by AVN itself and are therefore not third party sources. One source is a brief ABC gossip item that mentions that someone tweeted a photo of Bill Clinton standing next to one of the award winners. That is a passing mention and not significant coverage, and therefore does not establish notability. This article fails a core content policy and a widely accepted guideline. Any article about an award in any area of human endeavor that relies on such poor quality references should either be deleted or brought into compliance. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "and therefore does not establish notability." As at least 70 % of the Wikipedia lists do not, as well. I'm really happy now that bad quality and lacking (but still existing) sources (brought to the article from a random article author) are work of the so called "quality management" sites in the German Wikipedia and no accepted AfD-reasons for a generally relevant topic (defined by meeting our relevance criteria).
 * And I've naively thought it could be better here (as we have many deletion discussions as well), but it is not. It's the opposite. I'll mainly say goodbye, English Wikipedia (especially AfD hell), and just keep on spending your time with AfDs about topics you naturally probably don't care about. I have done that enough now (I'm not really that much of a porn fan, actually, niether a fan of deletion discussions in general and have very different interests in my everyday Wikipedia) but poorly wasted my time with trying to save some articles I had never a chance with. I guess Larry Sanger was not too wrong with demanding a chief editor and topic experts, as in that case we wouldn't have to hold these horrible deletion discussions. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Just to get it clear: I might occasionally give the one or the other comment in AfDs, yet, hopefully I won't.
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. North America1000 10:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. no evidence that this is more than just PR for the award. Teh refs, as has been noted, are not independent.  DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Are you kidding me? This is a highly important reward, very notable. ZN3ukct (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- notable according to whom? What are the independent reliable sources that discuss this topic directly and in detail? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, due to a lack of reliable third party sources. If mainstream publications don't write fact checked articles about something, that's usually an indication that it is not notable, and I see no compelling reason why porn should be given a free pass on this count.  Absent that, the only sourcing we have here is the usual astroturf and marketing fluff we see in promotional articles.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:25, 25 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.