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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Cybersocket Web Award

Cybersocket Web Award (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

An unremarkable, fan-based award; significant RS coverage not found. Does not work as a list either, as most recipients are nn. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 01:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 01:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep. There appear to be sources. Benjamin ( talk) 06:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC) reply

• If you see non-trivial RS coverage, please identify it. The "A Look at Cybersocket" XBIZ article counts as one. Everything else appears to consist of trivial coverage if they mention the awards at all. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep This event has been a recent key reference for restricted websites accepting cryptocurrency, as well as the normal LGBT+ culture related 'celebrity chat', used by journalists for the Daily Dot, NewNowNext and had a feature in The Advocate by Christopher Harrity last year. Significant enough for Wikipedia. -- Fæ ( talk) 10:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC) reply
• Nom's comment: no sources have been presented showing that the subject meets WP:NORG / WP:ORGDEPTH. Asserting that the topic is "significant enough for Wikipedia" is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Insufficient evidence of non-trivial RS coverage to pass WP:GNG, never mind the more rigorous WP:NORG guideline. That is even when assuming the XBIZ coverage I mentioned above is reliable. A check of Daily Dot finds only a trivial mention. The Christopher Harrity Advocate coverage consists of photo montages, not significant coverage. NewNowNext shows no credentials as a reliable source. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep per sources in article. TheEditster ( talk) 11:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply

• A summary of the sources: 1. Cybersocket award ceremony itself. 2. a listing in a gay marketing guide 3. Cybersocket itself 4. XBIZ (some non-trivial coverage with heavy input from the ceremony's principals) 5. Cybersocket's founders win AVN award (Cybersocket award not mentioned) 6. Cybersocket's founders win AVN award (Cybersocket award not mentioned). That is why I consider secondary RS coverage insufficient. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Why miss out the Advocate article? The Advocate is a primary LGBT+ cultural magazine, with no affiliation with Cybersocket, nor is it a porn industry related publication nor a "gay marketing guide", whatever those are.

Examining NewNowNext, I find them cited as a source in several UK national newspapers including the Independent, The Guardian, the Mail and the Daily Star. The rapid dismissal of all LGBT+ related sources for a LGBT+ related award, even when they are used as credible sources by the national press, is bending the idea of what a "walled garden" is, in a way that threatens to eliminate almost any LGBT+ related press off Wikipedia. -- Fæ ( talk) 15:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete Clearly not a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability has been discovered. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. HighKing ⁺⁺ 21:26, 12 April 2019 (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.