Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilsa, the Wicked Warden


 * 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. Withdrawn by nominator, unanimous consensus to keep.  Sandstein  15:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Ilsa, the Wicked Warden

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are no references here whatsoever showing notability--only databases known to publish material published by film creators or participants. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: Article on film in Ilsa series directed by Jesús Franco and starring Dyanne Thorne. Article was previously nominated for speedy deletion along with several other very clearly notable articles by the same user.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you please add references if you believe any exist for this article to prove its notability? That would be very helpful if you believe the deletion nomination is not valid. Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You need to practice WP:BEFORE. If you did, you'd find plenty of hits to prove that the flick is notable. I'm not saying this was a good article creation, but it shouldn't have been nominated for speedy deletion or brought up at AfD. I hope this Wicked Warden is not a drill sergeant or, worse, a Colonel, cause he'd set you straight real quick. AfD is not for article improvement, although that's often a happy outcome--but what needs to be proven here is that the subject is notable, and the results of my quick and easy Google search show that it is. If I were you, I'd make amends by improving the article and withdrawing the AfD. Eh, keep. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Um no, I'm too busy to add references to the pages of others. I simply want to make sure that those that are unreferenced (and where references are not immediately found upon research) are discussed as such. But it would be great if somebody could add references instead of arguing they aren't needed and that maybe somebody will add them eventually, in my opinion. Jeremy112233 (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability is based on the existence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, rather than their presence in the article currently. Article creators should add references, and also AfD nominators should conduct a good faith search for such coverage before nominating an article for deletion. If such sources are found, they should be added in lieu of an AfD nomination. An AfD nomination, in most cases, is an assertion by the nominator that the topic is inherently not notable and therefore can't be improved by normal editing. AfD is not a battleground for fighting out personal disputes between editors. I encourage the nominator to withdraw any and all such recent AfD nominations for notable films.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep based on the nominator's concession that xe didn't bother to even consider the existence of sources for this well-known sexploitation camp classic.  That makes this a misuse of AfD.  I could imagine an argument that the four "Ilsa" films could be discussed in one article, since many of the sources talk about them as a group, see e.g.   But deletion is not in the cards. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The coverage here isn't as heavy as the first Ilsa film, but it is there and it's enough to pass notability guidelines. Now the problem is that the sources did exist and were discovered fairly quickly. I understand that it's frustrating to have to add sourcing to articles that should've been properly sourced to begin with, but you should not put articles up for deletion without first searching and adding the sources to the article. AfD is not cleanup. And yes, it would be nice if another editor added them after asserting elsewhere that the sources exist, but that's still not in and of itself a reason for deletion. If you want sources to be added, find and add them yourself. Saying that you're too busy to do something is not an excuse, as it takes a considerably larger amount of work to create and argue an AfD than it would to ensure that you searched for sources and added any applicable ones to the article. I'm trying not to bite here, but I consider it to be fairly inappropriate to just nominate articles for deletion when you haven't at least made a good faith attempt to find and add the sources yourself. If you did search and you feel that the sources aren't enough or aren't there then that's one thing, but to nominate it just because they aren't on the article and you're too busy to search and add them just isn't the proper way to create an AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: As there are now plenty of references on the page, there's no reason to believe the article could be deleted at this point. So I change my vote to keep. Looks great.Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2013 (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.