Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double Agent 73


 * 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. ✗ plicit  23:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Double Agent 73

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep 2 reviews at Rotten Tomatoes, review at CineMagazine  Donald D23   talk to me  21:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither of the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes actually link to anything. Have you been able to read them to ascertain that they are full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics, in line with WP:NFO#1? I'm also not sure that the CineMagazine review is full-length—it's three paragraphs and under 375 words—nor that Bart Rietvink is a nationally known critic. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * CineMagazine has been used on hundreds of articles and AfDs and the general consensus is that it is independent and reliable. It has editorial oversight according to its about page. As for RT, reviews can sometimes no longer be accessible online but that doesn't mean they never existed. They are on RT (which is a Wikipedia Reliable Source when using CRITIC reviews), the actual reviews don't necessarily need to still exist on the original site as websites close all the time, companies go out of business, and magazines go bankrupt and cease publication. That does not render what they once published as irrelevant and disqualifies them from notability.  Donald D23   talk to me  22:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Just because the reviews may have existed doesn't mean that there have been full-length, nor that their authors are nationally known critics, which is important here. And, as shown in Articles_for_deletion/Hideout_in_the_Sun, Rotten Tomatoes occasionally aggregates reviews for the wrong movie. Sources are required to be WP:PUBLISHED, and an archived copy of the media must exist for media to be considered to be published. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * delete Rotten Tomatoes is somewhat rotten measure of notability. This is not Oscar material, or notable. Ode+Joy (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Rotten Tomatoes is listed by Wikipedia as a reliable source and is a good measure of notability. And, are you saying only Oscar quality films should be on Wikipedia? Donald D23   talk to me  21:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * OP jumping in here: none of the alleged reviews from Rotten Tomatoes appear to pass the WP:PUBLISHED test. If they are published, it would be certainly nice for you to demonstrate that they are and that Rotten Tomatoes isn't aggregating incorrectly. Beyond that, to advocate for reviews being significant coverage of a film without first reading them is extraordinarily imprudent in light of our principle of verifiability. As WP:ROTTEN states, [i]f a specific review is considered for inclusion, always ensure that it is a reliable source. And, I don't think was saying that only Oscar-level materials are worthy of Wikipedia, hence Ode+Joy's writing or. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, saying Oscar quality was a partial attempt at humor. But really, is this a famous movie by any measure? How many people have seen it? 20-25? My real objection is to all this "fluff" creating a fluff-pedia, after all. The other day I saw a page, attempting to create an article for a bus stop. At some point, we need to focus on really noteworthy items. Ode+Joy (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Double Agent 73 is discussed at length in Sleaze Artists: Cinema at the Margins of Taste, Style, and Politics, by Jeffrey Sconce, 2007, published by the Duke University Press and in ReFocus: the Films of Doris Wishman, by Alicia Kozma, 2021, published by Edinburgh University Press. This alone makes it notable. Also, at the very least, the CineMagazine review counts towards notability. This is just a selection of many sources and already sufficient for the WP:NFP. WP:NFO #2b is also met. In other words, contrary to what the intro claims, meets WP:NFILM. gidonb (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep IMDb lists 40 reviews. After having taken a quick look at some of them, I'm convinced that this meets our notability requirements. TompaDompa (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, as the reviews linked from IMDB show notabilityJackattack1597 (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2021 (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.