528:, please indicate what coverage you mean. (A) If it's the AVN awards page, that's cool, we just differ and it's up to the closer to decide who's right. (B) If it's AFD or IAFD, then, again, it's for the closer to decide, but I'd be astonished (and troubled) if they sufficed. (C) If it's some other source, especially one that's not in the article yet and is inarguably a
409:
I added them because you said they awards clinch notability. I don't think an article should be deleted if, during discussion of the deletion, someone sugests a way to rescue it. It's not derogatory, so adding it is no problem, for the time being. But, even with the refs, I don't think the article
312:
and the rest is the result of original research? The whole page looks like an advertisement for the series, not an encyclopedic article. Shouldn't it at least require actual coverage of the series in reliable sources, rather than just cast lists from IAFD and AFD, and a bare mention of the two awards
787:
Nice work. Thanks. For reasons I'll state in a moment, I don't think it's enough to rescue the article, but I do believe that an article should be put into the best shape it can be so that, if retained, it's improved and, if deleted, we know it had it's best shot. In the one instance where you made
414:
to find proof of award wins.... If a primary source is used only to fuel hype about the subject, for example, that would probably be discouraged." I can't find that exception for award wins. I think they have to be reported somewhere, in a secondary source. I could be wrong. I guess that's up to
446:, but one of the legion of junk trophies the magazine parcels out to its advertisers (clearly signalled by the point that it's not even important enough for AVN to mention in its main news coverage). In the utter absence of any RS-coverage of the subject, deletion is called for.
361:
and I take out the AVN Awards history pages as refs because they're primary sources, we're left with an article that does nothing but list films and casts, unsourced and list 2 awards, unsourced. How does one source the awards if even AVN magazine doesn't report them?
788:
another wiki-page a ref, I've moved it into the article as a wikilink. And now, the dreaded "but": But, all of the new refs are to the AVN Awards site, not AVN News. I don't think that's sufficient. IAFD, AFD, and primary sources are not enough. IAFD and AFD are not
303:
OK, I've added links for the two awards to the AVN Award winners pages from '09 and '11. But that still leaves everything else on the page sourced to AFD and IAFD. And the AVN Award winners pages are, I think, primary sources. Which would make citing to them
356:
It's the AVN Award wins that are original research. I can find no reporting about them. Not even in AVN magazine. I've sourced them to the AVN Awards history page. That's a primary source. So if I take out all the AFD and IAFD refs as not being
768:
FWIW, I just finished editing the article in question to the best of my ability. With 4 awards & over 20 other nominations (complete with references that I could find), I agree that this series has "just enough coverage to be notable".
396:). If a primary source is used only to fuel hype about the subject, for example, that would probably be discouraged. BTW, since you added the sources yourself, I'm now confused as to why you still think the article should be deleted.
168:
825:- I consider the multiple AVN awards to satisfy NFILMS. Also the multiple movies in the series have been reviewed enough by expert critics in the field to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Examples
472:, I think you missed the part of the section that says: "Some films that do not pass the above tests may still be notable, and should be evaluated on their own merits." BTW, how does
121:
162:
468:
no real guideline for pornographic films specifically, so your statement that the Gonzo Series award doesn't qualify seems to merely be your own opinion. And as for
733:
not because of a personal attack, but any consensus we're trying to reach here is being drowned out by arguments with those who don't agree with you. All the best,
243:
223:
128:
94:
89:
98:
792:. Refs to several AVN Awards pages is not significant coverage in secondary sources. The Awards pages, I believe, are primary sources. And I
81:
220:
17:
594:
183:
266:
The article could definitely use some better sources, but the two AVN wins for Best Gonzo Series should be enough for it to pass
796:
with
Hullabaloo here about these awards being among "...the legion of junk trophies the magazine parcels out to its advertisers
150:
455:
335:
The AVN wins are really all you need to pass notability. If you think all the other info constitutes original research, simply
415:
the closer. In sum: I think the article is in the best shape it can be, and I think, in that shape, it should be deleted.
830:
442:. The AVN "Best Gonzo Series" award is not "a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking" as required under
410:
should survive. I know what PORNBIO says about the awards, but I don't agree that "...primary sources are where you're
859:
40:
798:(...clearly signalled by the point that it's not even important enough for AVN to mention in its main news coverage.)
144:
451:
840:
813:
778:
752:
710:
675:
650:
605:
584:
545:
507:
488:
459:
424:
404:
371:
347:
326:
298:
278:
255:
235:
212:
63:
140:
836:
85:
190:
516:
Taking note that all of the refs on the page right now are to AFD and IAFD, which are, by definition, not
503:
77:
69:
855:
809:
541:
420:
367:
322:
294:
208:
36:
743:
641:
575:
616:
477:
393:
336:
832:
826:
176:
726:
689:
620:
558:
473:
469:
447:
267:
655:
But as I stated earlier, there is no real guideline for pornographic films specifically, and AVN
199:
This article is 100% entirely sourced to the Adult Film
Database and IAFD. Without even a single
156:
443:
774:
499:
251:
231:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
854:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
805:
537:
416:
363:
318:
290:
204:
801:
730:
664:
628:
525:
520:
and the AVN Awards page, which in my view is very different from AVN news reporting, not a
305:
734:
632:
566:
789:
533:
529:
521:
517:
358:
309:
200:
313:
sourced only to AFD and the AVN Past Awards pages. There's not even a news report from
705:
314:
58:
828:
308:. Does an article survive AfD when almost everything on the page is sourced to non-
770:
659:
a well-known and significant industry award--actually, what you just stated proves
388:
to find proof of award wins (that's exactly how pornographic actors are tested for
247:
227:
115:
725:
Since there's no guideline specific to pornographic films, the relevant one is
593:
don't consider the AVN Awards major isn't a valid criterion for deletion; see
692:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
701:
562:
380:
AVN Magazine doesn't always list the award wins and nominees in detail, but
203:
cited, it's hard to see what the argument for keeping the article would be.
54:
288:
Even if the only source that says so is IAFD or the Adult Film
Database.?
532:, that would be best of all. If you insert it, and I agree it's a
848:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
381:
627:
award" (or several nominations), which would include AVN.
111:
107:
103:
175:
699:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
189:
623:; it only requires a "well-known and significant
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
862:). No further edits should be made to this page.
476:play into this? (And if you're going to respond
384:always do, and primary sources are where you're
804:essay that I should stop rebutting after this.
663:point. (BTW, what's the point of bringing up
8:
480:like you usually do, don't respond at all.)
242:Note: This debate has been included in the
667:? I made a simple comment, not an attack.)
524:and something which, if used, may violate
241:
800:" On another note, I'm persuaded by the
244:list of Film-related deletion discussions
219:Note: This debate has been added to the
565:"major", as the guideline specifies.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
498:Just enough coverage to be notable.
24:
561:in my view; I don't consider the
536:, that would affect my position.
1:
753:19:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
711:10:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
676:05:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
651:02:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
606:00:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
585:22:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
546:18:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
508:17:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
489:19:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
460:11:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
450:also weighs in for deletion.
425:11:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
405:09:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
372:03:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
348:01:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
327:14:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
299:13:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
279:11:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
256:00:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
236:00:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
213:23:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
619:has different criteria than
879:
841:16:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
814:12:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
779:01:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
64:21:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
851:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
221:WikiProject Pornography
629:AfD is not a war zone
452:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
464:Actually, HW, there
78:Slutty and Sluttier
70:Slutty and Sluttier
48:The result was
713:
674:
604:
487:
403:
382:avnawards.avn.com
346:
306:original research
277:
258:
224:list of deletions
870:
853:
790:reliable sources
748:
739:
709:
698:
694:
673:
671:
646:
637:
603:
601:
580:
571:
518:reliable sources
486:
484:
402:
400:
392:notability; see
359:reliable sources
345:
343:
276:
274:
238:
194:
193:
179:
131:
119:
101:
62:
34:
878:
877:
873:
872:
871:
869:
868:
867:
866:
860:deletion review
849:
746:
737:
729:. I brought up
700:
687:
669:
644:
635:
599:
595:this discussion
578:
569:
482:
398:
341:
272:
218:
201:reliable source
136:
127:
92:
76:
73:
53:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
876:
874:
865:
864:
844:
843:
833:Morbidthoughts
819:
818:
817:
816:
782:
781:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
716:
715:
714:
696:
695:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
611:
610:
609:
608:
551:
550:
549:
548:
511:
510:
493:
492:
491:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
407:
375:
374:
351:
350:
330:
329:
315:AVN (magazine)
301:
282:
281:
260:
259:
239:
197:
196:
133:
72:
67:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
875:
863:
861:
857:
852:
846:
845:
842:
838:
834:
831:
829:
827:
824:
821:
820:
815:
811:
807:
803:
799:
795:
791:
786:
785:
784:
783:
780:
776:
772:
767:
764:
763:
754:
751:
750:
749:
742:
741:
740:
732:
728:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
712:
707:
703:
697:
693:
691:
686:
685:
677:
672:
666:
662:
658:
654:
653:
652:
649:
648:
647:
640:
639:
638:
630:
626:
622:
618:
615:
614:
613:
612:
607:
602:
596:
592:
588:
587:
586:
583:
582:
581:
574:
573:
572:
564:
560:
556:
553:
552:
547:
543:
539:
535:
531:
527:
523:
519:
515:
514:
513:
512:
509:
505:
501:
497:
494:
490:
485:
479:
475:
471:
467:
463:
462:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
441:
438:
437:
426:
422:
418:
413:
408:
406:
401:
395:
391:
387:
383:
379:
378:
377:
376:
373:
369:
365:
360:
355:
354:
353:
352:
349:
344:
338:
337:get rid of it
334:
333:
332:
331:
328:
324:
320:
316:
311:
307:
302:
300:
296:
292:
289:
286:
285:
284:
283:
280:
275:
269:
265:
262:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
240:
237:
233:
229:
225:
222:
217:
216:
215:
214:
210:
206:
202:
192:
188:
185:
182:
178:
174:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
142:
139:
138:Find sources:
134:
130:
126:
123:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
60:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
850:
847:
822:
797:
793:
765:
745:
744:
736:
735:
688:
668:
660:
656:
643:
642:
634:
633:
624:
598:
590:
577:
576:
568:
567:
554:
500:NickCochrane
495:
481:
465:
439:
411:
397:
389:
385:
340:
287:
271:
263:
198:
186:
180:
172:
165:
159:
153:
147:
137:
124:
49:
47:
31:
28:
806:David in DC
538:David in DC
417:David in DC
364:David in DC
319:David in DC
291:David in DC
205:David in DC
163:free images
617:WP:PORNBIO
563:AVN Awards
394:WP:PORNBIO
856:talk page
727:WP:NFILMS
706:talk page
621:WP:NFILMS
559:WP:NFILMS
478:uncivilly
474:WP:NOTDIR
470:WP:NFILMS
448:WP:NOTDIR
268:WP:NFILMS
248:• Gene93k
228:• Gene93k
59:talk page
37:talk page
858:or in a
690:Relisted
625:industry
444:WP:NFILM
412:supposed
386:supposed
122:View log
39:or in a
771:Guy1890
310:WP:RSes
169:WP refs
157:scholar
95:protect
90:history
802:WP:NWZ
794:concur
747:apolis
731:WP:NWZ
670:Erpert
665:WP:NWZ
645:apolis
600:Erpert
579:apolis
557:Fails
555:Delete
526:WP:NOR
483:Erpert
440:Delete
399:Erpert
342:Erpert
273:Erpert
141:Google
99:delete
589:That
534:WP:RS
530:WP:RS
522:WP:RS
390:their
264:Keep.
184:JSTOR
145:books
129:Stats
116:views
108:watch
104:links
16:<
837:talk
823:Keep
810:talk
775:talk
766:Keep
738:Mini
702:J04n
636:Mini
570:Mini
542:talk
504:talk
496:Keep
456:talk
421:talk
368:talk
323:talk
295:talk
252:talk
232:talk
209:talk
177:FENS
151:news
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
55:J04n
50:keep
591:you
191:TWL
120:– (
839:)
812:)
777:)
661:my
657:is
631:.
597:.
544:)
506:)
466:is
458:)
423:)
370:)
339:.
325:)
297:)
270:.
254:)
246:.
234:)
226:.
211:)
171:)
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
52:.
835:(
808:(
773:(
708:)
704:(
540:(
502:(
454:(
419:(
366:(
321:(
317:.
293:(
250:(
230:(
207:(
195:)
187:·
181:·
173:·
166:·
160:·
154:·
148:·
143:(
135:(
132:)
125:·
118:)
80:(
61:)
57:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.