Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/...And Give Us Our Daily Sex


 * 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 no consensus. North America1000 01:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

...And Give Us Our Daily Sex

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Film appears to fail WP:NFILM with not enough reviews to pass the guidelines, with none found in a BEFORE. Donald D23  talk to me  04:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Italy,  and Spain.  Donald D23   talk to me  04:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Previously deleted via PROD, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: None of the content is secondary source content, and none of the sources contain secondary source content. It is all directory information.  On google I can find no reviews, excluding user reviews that can’t be used for sourcing.  SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak keep. I found a review by Gilbert Adair in The Monthly Film Bulletin and another by Marjorie Bilbow in Screen International —both are on the shorter side, but I think they probably qualify as significant coverage. (These magazines don't seem to be available in the Wikipedia Library, so if you'd like to check them out for yourself, feel free to email me and I'll send the PDFs.) The article also cites what appears to be a review in Film-Dienst, although I'm not sure if it's sigcov because I can't access the full text. Usually I'd prefer a bit more than this when making a GNG-based argument, but this is a case where WP:NEXIST encourages us to be flexible, in my view. This is a forty-year-old foreign-language film, so it was most likely reviewed in contemporaneous Spanish or Italian film magazines or newspapers that aren't available online. Although "but there might be offline sources!" isn't always a winning argument, !voters should "consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any", and here I think that possibility is fairly high since we've already uncovered several English-language sources that get us most of the way to a GNG pass. I'd consider changing my !vote if someone with access to Spanish/Italian-language periodical archives wasn't able to find satisfactory sourcing. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep based on WP:NEXIST and 's points. Searching the BNE's digital periodical archives for Perisopio and Laura Gemser mentions in 1979 and 1980, there seem to be at least reviews of the film in El Correo de Zamora, La Nueva España, and El Periódico de Catalunya. The exact content isn't accessible by me, but the minimal preview text points to at least some of these being qualifying reviews. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2022 (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.