Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK Adult Film and Television 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   keep. WP:SNOW  MBisanz  talk 23:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

UK Adult Film and Television Awards
AfDs for this article:  Not a notable award. Very limited press coverage. What exists goes mainly to show that it is not notable. For example, article about how the well-known mainstream people who were supposedly going to show up never came, and that most of the "guests" were porn fans who paid to meet their favorite performers. Only other significant coverage was "news of the weird" type about how the publicity-seeking award givers had nominated a popular TV show for a porn award. An award doesn't become notable just by having a famous person nominated for it -- otherwise there'd be an entry on Wikipedia for "Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's Favorite TV Performer Award" and such. This award is so insignificant that after only two years it's website has gone dead and there's a notice that the server bill hasn't been paid. Delete. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Keep. Mainstream news articles linked in the article suggest notability. I see no grounds to delete here. JulesH (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

*Weak delete, the BBC news article is about Billie Piper, and the Awards are not the focus of the article. There is the article from The Guardian, which may indicate that there may be something notable out there, but with no further sources fulfilling WP:GNG (and I couldn't find any myself), I agree with the nominator that the notability of these awards is very dubious at best. - Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 20:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per reliable sources recently introduced to the article establishing WP:GNG. - Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 11:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's actually a fair amount of reliable source coverage available -- most of it focuses on the Billie Piper award, but that's not entirely disqualifying.  The GNG doesn't require that a source provide "exclusive" coverage of the subject to convey notability, only "non-trivial" coverage, and the BBC and ITN articles cited give as much info on the UKAFTA as they do on Billie Piper.  That coverage, plus the Guardian article reviewing a previous UKAFTA award ceremony, passes the bar of multiple, independent significant RS coverage and conveys the presumption of notability.  The other, more specific rationales presented by the nominator are not valid grounds for deletion: negative press coverage does not confer non-notability; a non-functioning official website (or the cessation of the organization, as may be the case here) does not confer non-notability because notability is not temporary; the fact that the organization nominated a celebrity does not convey notability, but the fact that its award was commented on by reliable sources does convey notability -- that's the difference between the UKAFTA and "Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's Favorite TV Performer Award".  Baileypalblue (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Quick google search shows plenty of hits and coverage. Seems notable to me. Unionsoap (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - agreed with Unionsoap, confirmed google hits although there are no gnews hits  §hawn poo   04:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The awards have been discussed by The Independent, The Guardian, the BBC, and Channel 4 news. These four sources are coincidentaly (IMHO) the best, most respected and reliable British sources of news and current affairs information. ie. as media sources go, they literaly couldnt be any more reliable. Willy turner (talk) 11:40, 11 March 2009 (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.