Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RISE 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. An article on the RabbitsReviews website is a possibility and it can be mentioned within it that they give awards. It is generally felt in this discussion that other porn-related site are not considered WP:RS for establishing notability for this porn topic. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RISE Award

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

No evidence of notability. No independent sourcing. All refs are either published by the subject or based on its PR material. NN award sponsored by NN website which periodically spams itself in Wikipedia articles. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as article creator) - covered by adult industry press (including one with its own separate awards program) also related to WikiProjects other than Porn. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, as the article creator, you know perfectly well that reposted ( and sometimes slightly retouched) press releases do nothing to establish notability, and are not the reliable, independent sources needed to support an article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you unilaterally believe to be spam on Wikipedia articles is not reflective of everyone's opinion. Hanswar32 (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Scalhotrod's reasoning. Hanswar32 (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments above. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question regarding notability Could editors be clear whether or not they think it is notable, and if so by the application of which notability guideline (general or a specific one) and with what references? --Ronz (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's unique within the industry as it appears to be the sole awards program focused exclusively on adult websites. If there are others, I have not found them. It has also hit the 5 year mark which several other Notable awards did not achieve. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to what policy and what reliable source? --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are not going to be any reliable sources for this, because it's just something Scalhotrod made up. It's not true. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding keeping as a stub If editors are arguing to keep it as a stub, then under what policies/guidelines? --Ronz (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's now a List article, not a stub. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same question then, as a list. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts: Full name:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL); website:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL); website:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per nom and Ronz (whose questions have sat unanswered). No independent sources. Pax 08:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Do to failure to identify applicable policies and sources in response to my questions above) Not notable. The temptation to expand it beyond a stub appears too great, and violates WP:SOAP and WP:BLP when doing so without any secondary sources other than reworked press releases. Most importantly, such awards need to be clearly notable as they are themselves are part of our notability criteria of WP:ANYBIO and WP:PORNBIO. --Ronz (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Uniqueness is not a criterion for notability or retention. Lack of reliable independent sources is a good reason for deletion. --Bejnar (talk) 01:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with reasoning by Scalhotrod, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a no reliable independent sources. –Davey2010^Talk 03:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Fails Gng and even turning it into a list doesn't overcome that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:48, 10 May 2015 (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.