Talk:Tori Black Is Pretty Filthy

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.

Advert
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)