Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SIGNY award


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 15:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

SIGNY award

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability in question since 2009. Could not find reliable source coverage about the awards. Sources are from the defunct awarding organization. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as nom Robert EA Harvey (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  04:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  04:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  04:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete more or less per nom. No nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - How can the article's notability be "in question since 2009" when these awards basically became defunct in 2005-06? If anything, this article should be moved/merged with a new article about the awards that basically replaced these awards, the Bondage Awards, which have apparently been around since 2008 or so. Guy1890 (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You can read that template below the afd notice in the article, can you? Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure I can...you apparently added it back then, and then you apparently proceeded not to try and improve the article since then. So? Guy1890 (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Can your misguided assumptions. I actually looked for independent reliable sources before I put the template up. The template was to notify other people to find them. Still can't find any now. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Look, if the awards in question stopped being issued around 2005, you're not going to find much in the way of any sources in 2009, 2013, or 2075 for that matter. That's my point. So you put a template on an article almost 4 years ago, again...so what? Guy1890 (talk) 07:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There's this thing called the Internet that existed in 2005 that didn't magically disappear in 2009, with sites, like google news, archive.org, avn, xbiz, documenting articles between those two periods. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You really can't be serious here. Of course the Internet "didn't magically disappear in 2009". If what you're saying is that these awards were never noteworthy in the first place (when they were in existence from 2000 to 2005), well then...that's one opinion. My point is that those awards, whether they were notable or not, have obviously been replaced by another set of awards, which have been in existence since 2008 and which are discussed on this article's main page and talk page. That info has been available on these pages since at least 2008. In other words, it was available in late 2009 when you apparently decided to slap a tag on this page to "notify other people to find" sources for this article. Guy1890 (talk) 07:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete for lacking non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. As for the argument above, RS coverage apparently wasn't there when the award existed and coverage hasn't emerged since the award folded. Therefore not notable. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of RS supporting any claim of notability. Cavarrone (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete The Internet is not the only place one can look for reliable sources. There are books, too.  And newspapers that don't have their own websites.  Happily, Google has a ton of old newspapers available and searchable, and Amazon has a similar function.  Lot's of articles are based on reliable sources other than things that can be web linked.  There's no requirement that a reliable source be accessable on the web.  No one's found any reliable sources for this one since 2009 at least.  I can't find any now.  Deletion four years after the tag was put up is quite reasonable. David in DC (talk) 11:02, 2 May 2013 (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.