Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portrait of a Call Girl


 * 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   keep.  Sandstein  05:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Portrait of a Call Girl

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

1. Notability (with only citations for industry awards, none for bulk of article) 2. advert 3. spam 4. COI 5. content (see 1.) Widefox (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes our guideline for films, awards are not "advert" or "spam" but evidence of notability, per WP:MOVIE. And from what do you argue there's a "coi"? --Cavarrone (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article clearly meets general and topical notability guidelines for films. Couldn't find any indication of COI, lack of neutrality, or supporting information or clarification on talk page about concerns. That said, a conflict of interest (even if identified) is not a valid criteria for deletion. Best regards,  Cindy  ( talk to me ) 17:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, secondary source coverage from multiple references, recipient of numerous awards and accolades. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per meeting WP:NF though its awards.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - pornographic industry promotion and spam. - You  really  can  20:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Simply having a neutral article on a topic that meets applicable notability criteria does not promote that article nor make that article spam, no more than it does for any other article on a topic meeting notability criteria. Pardon, but your argument could be just as erroneously mis-applied to The Sound of Music. What we do with otherwise acceptable stubs on notable topics is encourage they be improved, not deleted.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I came here from anti-vandalism (hence my COI tag which is for unusual editing patterns that are not plausibly justified as a new editor), and I do not consider this article creation, the style of the "new" editor that created it normal, or anything about the content and hollow industry insider refs being neutral. AVN isn't the Oscars. WP:LIPSTICK is good background reading. This article is undue weight on awards cf negligible film content, maybe we have a general problem with too easy notability for porn? Widefox (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.