Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK Adult Film and Television Awards
There's actually a fair amount of |reliable source coverage available -- most of it focuses on the Billie Piper award, but that's not entirely disqualifying.  The |GNG doesn't require that a source provide "exclusive" coverage of the subject to convey notability, only "non-trivial" coverage, and the BBC and ITN articles cited give as much info on the UKAFTA as they do on Billie Piper.  That coverage, plus the Guardian article reviewing a previous UKAFTA award ceremony, passes the bar of multiple, independent significant RS coverage and conveys the presumption of notability.  The other, more specific rationales presented by the nominator are not valid grounds for deletion: negative press coverage does not confer non-notability; a non-functioning official website (or the cessation of the organization, as may be the case here) does not confer non-notability because |notability is not temporary; the fact that the organization nominated a celebrity does not convey notability, but the fact that its award was commented on by reliable sources does convey notability -- that's the difference between the UKAFTA and "Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's Favorite TV Performer Award
— User:Baileypalblue, 22:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:RS||WP:GNG||WP:NTEMP (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)