Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Gay Porn Awards


 * 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. JForget 01:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

European Gay Porn Awards

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Proposed for deletion with the reason "Short-lived and apparently defunct only poll, not notable, no significant GNews hits, coverage appears restricted to self-published blogs." Brought here for wider discussion because of possible relevance for actor biographies in that area. Tikiwont (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as per my original PROD (which should have read "online poll," not "only poll"). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  14:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment it has some sourcing available from AVN, and XBIZ . I'm not sure it warrants a keep, but Hullabaloo apparently not even looking is problematic. Horrorshowj (talk) 07:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Another flimsy pony theory. Most of the contents of the AVN and XBIZ sites is sourced directly from press releases and similar promo material, and fails WP:RS. If you're not going to bother to check for reliable sources yourself, don't make groundless accusations against those of us who actually do. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Both AVN and XBIZ pass WP:RS, and have factored into numerous AfD. You've taken part in enough of them to be aware of this, and your apparent failure to even look at either site is problematic. Less so than following it with yet another personal attack. This is the second position this week where you maintained that all previous AfD were wrong based on your latest whim of interpretation. If the topic makes you incapable of respecting previous consensus, or acting civilly, then you shouldn't participate in porn related Afd.Horrorshowj (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:V is policy and cannot be varied by local consensus. There's no denying that both sites publish press releases and other publicity material which fail the GNG requirement for independent sourcing. The fact that you don't like these standards isn't a valid excuse for your making groundless and invalid personal attacks on editors who follow them.  The relevant provisions of the GNG are quite specific, excluding "self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." Since you resort to uncivil personal attacks rather than applying undisputed policy and guideline requirements, you're the one who shouldn't be participating in these AFDs. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What specifically are you claiming are "groundless and invalid personal attacks on editors"? For that matter, why are you referring to yourself in the plural? I'm aware that WP:V is a policy. I've never claimed that it wasn't. Nor have I claimed that press releases counted towards notability. The articles on the two sites are a different matter. The applicable project has reviewed them, and came to the conclusion the staff written articles are a reliable source. That this has been accepted at dozens of Afd discussions means that we can safely view it as a widely held view. You disagree with the interpretation, good for you. However, that doesn't mean that every editor who disagrees with you is disregarding or ignorant of policy. It certainly isn't changing the "policy by local consensus." Horrorshowj (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The "applicable project also reviewed AInews.com and declared it to be a reliable source, even though it seems to do nothing but republish press releases. Nonindependent sources aren't enough to establish notability under the GNG, no matter what contrary local consensus may be reached at an individual Wikiproject. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, fails GNG. DiiCinta (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Nom appears to be correct. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per the consensus above. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. A short-lived porn-industry marketting device.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:45, 28 June 2010 (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.