Talk:Tori Black Is Pretty Filthy

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 April 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Pornography Low‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Undue weight

There's no plot, or details of what this article is about. There are award ceremonies/awards & saleable product features. c.f. no details on what the film is i.e. plot or context. If it was a stub, this may be ok (really?), but it isn't and I'm not stubbing as I guess its close to what can be backed by citations. This is somewhat of a WP:COATRACK for the awards rather than the film? There must be a practical connection between the awards and the film, e.g. the simple question what part of the film justifies the award.

Rather than a balanced encyclopaedic article, this undue balance culminates in an advert. This is my justification for the advert tag. I am curious about the reasoning behind removing the advert tag? Widefox (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which specific sentence "is written like an advertising" and "needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view"? Everything appears quite objective and written in a neutral way. I found no trace of explicit advert in this very short article.Cavarrone (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

per spirit of advertising reasoning above, and as per the letter of WP:NOTADVERTISING "5. Advertising. ... All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, " - there are no independent sources about the topic (this is covered in more detail in the AfD, so I shall leave at this for more comments - those industry promotional awards are not in my opinion independent third party, and looking at other AfDs other editors have shared similar concerns.) Widefox (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]