Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/31st AVN 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

31st AVN Awards

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article; all sources are either press releases from the event's promoter, promo pages, or blog-posted lists cut-and-pasted from the publicity material. The article is a massive redlink farm, with the potential for serious BLP violations, since the article's author(s) haven't bothered to check how many of the fake porn performer names also correspond to notable people. I found and corrected three bad links in a cursory review, but there are scores more to check, absent responsible behavior by the author(s). Aside from being a NOTDIR violation, this is a promo page created by an SPA who's apparently an industry publicist. If the event actually gets sufficient reliable source coverage (likely after it takes place), content can be written, but until then its sponsors should be paying for its advertising in more appropriate places. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with Hullaballoo above in part (yes, it's a redlink farm, but I don't think it's promotional), and I do hope more people weigh in on this discussion.

First the disagreement: Yes, at this point, the sources are primarily press releases, but that would change after the event, as Hullaballoo notes. However, the article itself is just five sentences long and consists primarily of what the event is, where it's held, who's hosting and who's been named for an achievement award; there's no shill for where to buy tickets, etc. If you have a look at the page for the 86th Academy Awards, that's the same information (or less) as is posted there, and because the Oscars haven't been held yet, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and Oscars.org are the main sources used (six of the 11 citations), though that will change after their awards ceremony, too, but I wouldn't call the 86th Oscars page promotional either, though I can understand how some might. (In theory any entry about most any upcoming event promotes it in some way.)

Perhaps the problem here is that

Adult Video News

is, and thus might stand to benefit commercially by a Wikipedia entry. But regardless, both the Oscars and the AVN Awards are the premiere industry awards shows in their industries, so for the article portion alone, at this point, I don't have a problem. As for the lists of nominees, well, the source of the schedule and the list of Oscar nominees is the AMPA, so the source for the AVN nominees should be AVN.

Meanwhile, the main

AVN Award

page is far too long in size and so new pages for each year's have been the logical step to keep the main entry from growing further; that's why I created the page, and I did so in hopes that others will add to it. Hullaballoo's statement "this is a promo page created by an SPA who's apparently an industry publicist" is incorrect. I certainly have no connection with anyone in the industry, nor have I ever even met anyone involved with the AVN Awards or any such event, and I don't even live in the U.S. (And please note, if I were an industry shill, I would've added the production companies' names to every nominee, because that's what AVN promotes in their listings and that's primarily what the industry would want. I didn't do that because to me that's just free advertising for production companies and an encyclopedia page noting the nominees and, ultimately, the winners (which have always been deemed to be noteworthy for the 30 years preceding) is not the place for that. (I doubt that it matters to the average person what company produced any given adult movie any more than it does with the Oscars, but if I'm wrong someone will let me know!)

Now the agreement: Yes, "the article is a massive redlink farm." I added the nominees from the 18 categories that are part of the awards show (or at least were the categories used in last year's show; I have no knowledge of which categories will be used this year, but they don't seem to change much). There are more red links than I'd like, but most were in the "Best New Starlet" category, and frankly, since this category is for someone new, most of those nominees shouldn't have Wikipedia pages yet because they haven't established notability. The other main area with red links is European movie sex scenes and I'm guessing many of those actresses have non-English Wikipedia pages (though I haven't checked.)

However, here's the bigger problem: From what I've read, most of the awards (it looks like 150 or more) are actually handed out a day or two before the awards show, during an industry trade show. The largest proportion of the red links are in 14 more categories added later by a user named Rebecca1990 (talk), whom I don't know. I haven't any idea if that user is part of the industry or why she (I'll assume it's "she") added all those categories, so I hope she contributes to this talk page. Personally, I would not have added those 14 categories, because AVN doesn't deem them to be important enough to give them their awards during event itself. That leads me to think they're considered to be minor categories. However, I'd like to hear further discussion and if Rebecca1990 or others can convince me otherwise, I'm open to reconsidering.

I certainly do agree with Hullaballoo that everyone needs to "check how many of the fake porn performer names also correspond to notable people" and I can assure everyone that I checked every one of the nominations in the categories I posted, although we're all human and I can't rule out that I missed one. (I did, however, fail to fix links to 14 disambiguation pages while creating the pages; I noted them at the time I was checking links, but then forgot to fix them at the end (my bad)!) Luckily, DPL Bot caught that overnight and upon receiving DPL Bot's email the next day, when I went back to fix it, a user named The Banner (talk) had already done so (thank you!).

I'm interested in what others have to say about the issues raised on this page and what other solutions there might be, and I'm sure Hullaballoo is, too, so please weigh in, folks! Thanks!

Pumik9 (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.103.234 (talk) [reply]

Oops.. Sorry! I forgot to log in. I certify that the preceding statement was indeed mine! Pumik9 (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no comment on the topic itself, but as the leading presenter of these awards it's just as notable as the Emmy's and Grammy's are for acting. By the rationale should go then so should every mention of AVN awards for the past three decades which is also ridiculous. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep the article is not at all promotional in any way. And if it, the 71st Golden Globe Awards would be too. The AVN awards are a major event in the adult film industry. Emptyviewers (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good amount of source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 05:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.