Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XBIZ 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 keep. Michig (talk) 06:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

XBIZ Award

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable set of massively hyped awards (see also attempts to spam links to these awards across Wikipedia) for which there doesn't appear to be significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

*Delete. Rare that Washington Post or New York Times would use or cite Xbiz  Awards, though its awards are of significance within its narrow genre. Sure Wikipedia is so-far WP:NOTCENSORED, but elimination of porn topics will benefit Wikipedia in the long run. By removing this long-accepted notability qualifier which itself supports multiple porn-topic articles allows the eventual removal of those porn topics. The AVN Awards should be bundled into this AFD to speed that process.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 14:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Struck my delete per strength of the policy and guideline based arguments for keep.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability does not require that an article cite the Washington Post or The New York Times as sources. Also, you seem to be confusing this AfD with a community discussion about WP:PORNBIO. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well...any AFD resulting in the over-ruling of a guideline can create a new consensus toward interpretation of that guideline and be often referenced in later AFds as the consensus grows. And too, when a genre topic IS written about in mainstream publications, it is more difficult for someone to declare the topic non-notable, in spite of whatever guideline an over-ruling is being attempted.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep XBIZ is an adult industry trade publication that's been "cited in the media for coverage of the rapidly evolving adult industry and has been published in CNN, Fox News, Newsweek, MSNBC, Forbes, The Wall Street Journal, Wired, ABC, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, The Hollywood Reporter and Variety among others." The XBIZ Awards basically are to the AVN Awards what the Golden Globes are to the Oscars. Are there some XBIZ Awards that are obviously minor in nature? Sure, but the same can be said of any award show (mainstream or adult orientated). One the key measures in evaluating whether or not a porn article is notable is how many & what types of awards the subject has received in the past. Without a valid listing of industry trade awards, then a lot of porn-related Wikipedia articles would eventually be deleted. The idea that because "Wikipedia is so-far WP:NOTCENSORED" that we should basically start censoring it now for some "greater purpose" is, IMHO, underhanded. Is this some kind of April Fools prank? Guy1890 (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Slow right down there. That quote you just made the key point of your "Keep" argument has the URL http://blog.mikandi.com/news/mikandi-news/mikandi-nominated-xbiz-mobile-company-of-the-year-2013 ... right? so it's a blog post by a company that was just awarded a XBIZ Award, right? Do you really think that's convincing in an AfD discussion? April Fool yourself. Unless, of course, you can add references to the article of multiple independent reliable sources discussing the subject of the article in significant detail. Can you? I tried. That coverage does not exist. This marketing scam is not notable. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "Do you really think that's convincing in an AfD discussion?" Yes, I do.  "Unless, of course, you can add references to the article of multiple independent reliable sources discussing the subject of the article in significant detail. Can you?"  Sure...NBC, XBIZ debate shown on CNN, more from CNN, another CNN article, ABC News, USA Today, San Francisco Chronicle, and The Daily Beast. Why are all these news agencies quoting XBIZ and people associated with XBIZ? Because XBIZ is an adult industry trade organization, just like Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Publishers Weekly, Design World, etc. . I admire your passion Mr. Demiurge, but it's misplaced in this instance.Guy1890 (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment on the above sources:
 * the NBC source is about a porn star/senatorial candidate who had an Xbiz award. it lacks detail about Xbiz.
 * the first CNN source is about the XXX domain - xbiz award in not mentioned xbiz is only mentioned as an affiliation. - it lacks detail about Xbiz or the award.
 * the second CNN is about twitter use and - xbiz award in not mentioned xbiz is only mentioned as an affiliation. - it lacks detail about Xbiz or the award.
 * the third CNN article is about the industry - xbiz award in not mentioned is only mentioned as an affiliation. - it lacks detail about Xbiz or the award.
 * the ABC is about free porn - xbiz award in not mentioned xbiz affiliation is. - it lacks detail about Xbiz or the award.
 * the USATODAY does not mention the award either.
 * the thedailybeast only mentions the AVN award by name. - it lacks detail about Xbiz awards.
 * the sfgate only uses xbiz as an affiliation and does not mention the awards - it lacks detail about Xbiz awards.
 * These sources do not stand up to scrutiny. You are right about xbiz being a trade organization but that is not the debate here we are considering the merit of the Xbiz Awards which are either not mentioned or not described in in any detail except 1 sentence in the above sources. BO &#124; Talk 15:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "These sources do not stand up to scrutiny." Of course they do...I'm sorry, but this really isn't rocket science here people. XBIZ is an adult trade association that routinely is mentioned in many mainstream media sources. XBIZ has notability, therefore their awards have notability. Guy1890 (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That argument is plainly incorrect. My local "alternative" weekly newspaper is notable, not so the annual award it gives out to local businesses for things like "Best Butcher," "Best Bar Bathrooms," "Best Coffee Shop," and "Best Pizza Joint". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "My local 'alternative' weekly newspaper is notable". Does it have its own Wikipedia article then? "not so the annual award it gives out to local businesses"...in your own opinion that is. Guy1890 (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You make an intriguing point but there are some well established examples. Michelin which sells tires and being a top 50 CAC Company is notable. Does it mean that all its employee of the month award recipients are automatically notable - I think not. Even the coveted Michelin Star awarded yearly to restaurants for the last 100 years was not considered notable automatically. The Michelin Star's notability had to be determined according to the criteria used by other brands. So as we know notability is not something that non notable people can inherent from their parents and the same seems to applies to non notable brands and awards of notable organizations. BO &#124; Talk 20:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Please, we're not talking about an "employee of the month award" here or the son or daughter of some famous person, and you know it. This is discussion is getting quite silly. Guy1890 (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The importance of the awards is attested to by, among other things, the amount of coverage provided by the Adult Video News, which sponsors a competing award. They have also been mentioned in the Colombian newspaper Terra, by Dan Savage in his syndicated column "Savage Love", and by MarketWatch. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep They are notable within their industry and mainstream news sources have used them as a source. Therefore, the awards they give out are also notable.  Dismas |(talk) 00:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per it being notable within its own industry and its being referenced and quoted in mainstream sources. I have struck my earlier delete per cogent arguments by Malik Shabazz and the multiple mainstream sources provided by Guy1890. I am happy to set aside my personal opinion of that industry and not let a personal dislike of it color an even, proper and fair application of existing notability guidelines.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (Speedy?) Keep Notable in their field and a significant number of mentions/references in well-known mainstream sources. I would add to this group of sources LA Weekly and The Huffington Post (several times). Cavarrone (talk) 05:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, but . . . The awards have achieved enough coverage to establish notability. However, XBIZ is not a genuinely independent trade news source, but a component of a PR business, and their notability is astroturfed rather than natural. There's a case to be made for merging the discrete articles related to the business into an umbrella piece with better perspective. And the nominator's comments about spamming here are very well taken. The awards are given by a PR business, very often to its own clients, and relentlessly linkfarmed into Wikipedia articles, signalling strongly that they are promotional artifices rather than genuine recognition of achievement. They should be treated quite skeptically as evidence of notability. One of the HuffPost pieces cited as evidence of the awards' notability is scathing: XBIZ is a newer awards ceremony that aims to honour "individuals, companies, performers and products that play an essential part in the growth and success of adult entertainment", about which Sage is scathingly critical and is more inclined to agree with Noelle's contention that large advertisers who back large production companies coincidentally win more awards. "XBIZ is incredibly stupid. Half way through the show almost all the seats were empty, most of us walked out. It was a total joke." This was an attitude I unearthed from the majority of the performers and directors at the event. Many believe that almost all of the award ceremonies were, if not fixed, in some way swayed by a small group of rich and influential people. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The citation is correct, but, as a side note, we should note that it comes from the organizators of a competing award, the Feminist Porn Award. Cavarrone (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No. That "Feminist Porn Award" is a junk trophy handed out by an "erotic boutique" in Toronto to products it sells. The sources cited by HuffPost are not its "organizators," just porn performers/merchants who have collected some of that tinfoil. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, you are true. I "read" it wrong (better to say, I gave a lazy quick look). Probably I was still half asleep. Cavarrone (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Mr. Wolfowitz has frequently used the above rhetoric in porn-related AfD discussions before. What the article that he cites actually shows is another thing though. First, it simply shows that Nica Noelle doesn't like award shows ("Whilst it was beyond clear that for her fans, Noelle would do anything, it was equally clear that the glitz and glamour of awards shows is difficult for her. 'I'm taking you here because I think it will be good for your article, but if it wasn't for you, it's very unlikely I would have come.'").  It also shows that she, and at least some of her fellow adult business members, have disdain for ALL award shows ("Many believe that almost all of the award ceremonies were, if not fixed, in some way swayed by a small group of rich and influential people.").  The same, exact quote could be used to describe the Oscars or many other mainstream award shows.  The article also shows that Nica Noelle has the same amount of disdain for the AVN Awards as she does for any other adult award show, of which there are at least several, ("Next come the musical and comedic acts before the awards themselves are handed out and as Noelle predicts, the big names and industries seem to win award after award.").  Ultimately, Noelle actually wins an AVN Award, but she doesn't collect it because "You have to pay for them and I don't really care about awards unless they're voted for by my fans. I'll leave it."


 * I've yet to see any clear evidence to support the often repeated idea, that Mr. Wolfowitz has used on his apparent crusade to rid Wikipedia of porn-related articles, that the XBIZ Awards "are given by a PR business, very often to its own clients" Guy1890 (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Guy1890 - I'm really confused about what you are trying to argue here. The context of the above quotes is unclear. Could you clarify what you mean and how it relates to WP policy. Thanks. BO &#124; Talk 22:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * What I'm saying is that Mr. Wolfowitz is wrong about the article that he originally quoted . All of the quotes that I highlighted above come from that very same article. Guy1890 (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment while this award is clearly popular (at least on Wikipedia). While it has been noticed by secondary sources - though some of the listed above do not mention xbiz awards in any details. These would normally make a strong case for keeping it.
 * I don't think morality is a real issue in this AfD, but the automatic assumption that this is a legitimate award. Since this award is increasingly used to establish WP:Notabilty there is a growing concern if this can be considered normative per Wikipedia's standards this award is objective, independent, exclusive like say the Nobel Prize or if it is essentially a promotional enterprise masquerading as an impartial judge of quality? If this award is predominantly promotional then the coverage in the article is undue and essentially an extension of a commercial POV a WP:NOT point and should be deleted. I therefore ask if there are sources indicating :
 * pre-award media interest before it release with speculation on possible winners.
 * serious criticism or parody of the choices made by the judges of award? like the Nobel Peace Prize or like with the Academy Awards ceremony.
 * absence of such sources are indicative that this award may well be an industry paying lip service to itself. BO &#124; Talk 14:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "this award is objective, independent, exclusive like say the Nobel Prize or if it is essentially a promotional enterprise masquerading as an impartial judge of quality?" There really aren't many award processes that are truly considered "objective, independent, exclusive" these days. Even the Nobel Prize and the Academy Awards have had serious criticism leveled at them over their many years of existence. There's even an entire Wikipedia article dedicated to discussing many of the controversies with the Nobel Prize.  "absence of such sources are indicative that this award may well be an industry paying lip service to itself."  I'm sorry, but basically all modern award processes are industries paying lip service to themselves. We shouldn't hold adult award ceremonies to any higher standard than other, more mainstream award ceremonies IMHO. The XBIZ Awards are just another example of an established, notable industry trade organization (XBIZ) handing out a set of awards.  The AVN Awards are another example of basically the exact same thing.  Guy1890 (talk) 05:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article's topic has been the subject of significant secondary sourced reception and commentary, as can be easily found listed at http://www.xbiz.com/about/ . Additionally listed at, specifically, lots of potential references in books. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: There are some more sources listed available for perusal, in the German language version of the Wikipedia article about this topic. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Question: in the German Wikipedia the award and the news service are just one article - are suggesting we merge the two like they did ? BO &#124; Talk 23:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Just suggesting there might be some secondary sources there, that could be used to improve the quality of sourcing at this article, here. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Can't really add more than what Guy1890 said with his sources, but on a side note, BO has a history of !voting "delete" on just about anything porn-related, so I'm smelling some WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT here.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 21:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Erpert, you've been warned already about inappropriately personalizing deletion discussions, and you know perfectly well, especially given the large number of porn articles you created that were AFD-deleted, that quite a few users reject your opinions. Stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS on editors whose opinions you do not share. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, HW, here's an idea...how about discussing the article for once instead of other editors? (Have you never read WP:POT?) If you can't ever learn to be civil, maybe you shouldn't say anything.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 16:21, 9 April 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.