Talk:How to Make Money Like a Porn Star

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 October 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Pornography Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comics Low‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

I've trimmed some of the more adlike adjectives, but I think adding detail would help more- including links to external reviews (be they positive or negative), a more detailed plot summary, etc. After all, review copies have already come out, it's not like the contents are unknown. Evan Waters 17:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just read a review about this horrific comic book. I don't know why anyone would want to read a piece of trash this sick.

http://www.girl-wonder.org/girlsreadcomics/index.php

Miriam Breslauer 6 October 2006

More marketing oddness[edit]

The author of the original, adlike version of this entry's other Wikipedia edits were almost all related to artists who worked on this book (Bernard Chang, John Paul Leon, and Sean Chen). Is anyone else slightly suspicious?Knight Random 20:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)KnightRandom[reply]

I agree with KnightRandom. This entry seems to be being used as a marketing tool (see discussion here). Regardless, that part on "Controversy" is completely NPOV and it lacks citations the bloggers mentioned have names, blogs, and reviews on the internet, not to mention that pointing out that "[m]ainstream critics have raved about the book," discredits the negative reviews by making them look "amateur".

-tekanji 222.228.197.217 08:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Mainstream critics have raved about the book" doesn't seem very neutral. Can we cut that sentence and jsut make it clear that the book got both positive and negative reviews?

Please note: I'm requesting that all editors stop changing the page so that we can resolve this matter through official channels, as per the official dispute resolution policies. This flamewar is pointless and is detrimental to Wikipedia as a legitimate project. - Tekanji 222.228.197.217 10:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try thishttp://3dc70hn87qho9l1fzg938hkmbw.hop.clickbank.net/ TomSales7 (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]