Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tori Black Is Pretty Filthy


 * 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. Delete votes are unconvincing. The awards won seem to satisfy GNG and the applicable secondary guidelines. ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 17:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Tori Black Is Pretty Filthy

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

1. notability - minor industry awards aside, no establishment of notability 2. taking awards into account - they are minor (not best actress or film) - someone will be able to confirm this? 3. claim of "As for article's subject meets WP:MOVIE#1" - please spell out reason rather than just state as I don't follow that, so have AfDed it Widefox (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:NFILM, as the the claimed award/nominations, the only plausible reason advanced for notability, do not meet the guideline standard of "a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Based on the AVN Award for Best Gonzo release satisfying WP:NFILM. An AVN is the biggest award for pornography. Nominator does not understand that the Best Gonzo Release award is for the best film in one of the two major movie categories (gonzo & feature). Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment There is no third party source for this article.
 * Do you have a third party source for the AVN award or any other part of this article - as per requirement "independent, third-party reliable sources" in WP:NFILM ? (This seems pertinent due to the reputation of the AVN awards AVN_(magazine) Widefox (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There are third party sources confirming the AVN award and other awards . A lot of editors just like to cite to the awarding organizations instead of a third party out of convenience. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Citing primaries makes a weak case for an article. Although I'll agree adding xbiz refs are the right direction - the question being how independent and 3P are they? Any precedent as a WP:RS and indep.? They are not obviously independent. If I understand AVNs, they started as business promo awards, and have expanded, more business promo than quality, unlike Oscars right, and derided on the WP article about them. Widefox (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Are we talking about the reliability of XBIZ or AVN? If we're talking about XBIZ, they are independent of AVN since they are competing trade journals. If we're talking about AVN, their reliability as a source is irrelevant in determining whether they are considered major awards under NFILM. I am the main author of that wikipedia article deriding them. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, recipient of multiple award wins, accolades, honors, and nominations. Secondary source coverage per explanation by, above. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per meeting WP:NF through its awards.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per meeting WP:MOVIE. About the nomitor's question: "taking awards into account - they are minor (not best actress or film) - someone will be able to confirm this?", it does not exist an award for "best film" as the film awards are split by genre, and the major awards in this field are "best gonzo film" and "best feature film". Cavarrone (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Industry spam - promotion of pornography. -  You  really  can  20:19, 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. 22:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is nothing currently in this article referenced to indep. 3P sources. It is industry spam/promo - the creation/author-style is I suspect COI (I came here from anti-vandalism work), and hollow industry insider awards add nothing but hollow legitimacy for inclusion, against the spirit of advertising. The content of the article is hollow - it is WP:LIPSTICK. The industry awards are not independent of the films (less so than the Oscars). Widefox (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Commercial promotion, nothing more. 208.54.45.193 (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC) — 208.54.45.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. While various "keep" votes cite NFILMS #3, there is no verifiable support for the notion that the various honors claimed for this video meet the relevant standard of being ""a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking". If this claim is to be sustainable, we ought to have third-party recognition of the significance of the award(s) involved; right now, all we have are laundry lists of the scores of awards passed out by various industry organizations -- we don't even have industry press reports suggesting which awards on the lists are the most prestigious/significant/consequential/whatever. Moreover, NFILMS #3 is a secondary standard; as the guideline text notes, the criterion is one of several "attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist", but that "meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the film". Here, there is absolutely no reliable, third-party coverage cited in the article, and GNews/GBooks searches turn up mostly press releases and presskit pieces (not even many of those!) with a smattering of passing mentions on news aggregation sites. There is no plausible argument that the subject meets the primary criteria in NFILMS, and the (questionable) assertion that it satisfies a secondary standard is insufficient to justify the existence of an article without reliable sourcing, in accordance with the full text of the NFILMS guideline. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Yawn. Read the first sentence of the AVN Award article and its corresponding citations. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're falling asleep at the switch, MT. The issue is not the stature of AVN awards generally, but of the "Best Gonzo Release" award in particular. It's telling that while the AVN Awards have significant media coverage, in and out of the industry, this award generates exactly one GNews outside the pages of AVN (a passing mention is a very short piece on a porn director who claims to be related to Thomas Pynchon). If it were a "major" award under NFILM, shouldn't there be relevant reports outside the annual laundry lists? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * keep has won several major awards, has numerous refs. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:53, 26 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.