Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poor Cecily


 * 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. The consensus is that the sources provided in the article and this debate do not meet the standard required by WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV. Daniel (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Poor Cecily

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

Fails WP:NFILM: unnotable porn with mostly unknown cast and no reviews that I can find. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not a porn film. This blog can confirm it. Mubi or AV Club also have a page if you want to verify its genre precisely. But that's not the most important. There is significant coverage in various reliable books, including:
 * 1) Sexy Heroine ; Erotic Heroines in Movies - p. 42
 * 2) Cinema Sewer: The Adults Only #Guide to History's Sickest nd Sexiest Movies! · Volume 1 ....p. 79
 * 3) La Revue du cinéma- p. 345 (attesting, incidentally, distribution in French as Soumise et perverse Cécilie and yet another alt title as The Erotic Adventures of Poor Cecily.)
 * 4) Sade et le cinéma - p. 137
 * Also mentioned in:


 * 1) Dad Made Dirty Movies (not centered on the film)
 * 2) History of censorship of the film in Australia (to have an overview of its versions with different durations)
 * Keep .Thank you.
 * - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  12:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete no sourcing found. So it's a non-porn adult film? So R rated?. Delete as no sources found regardless. Oaktree b (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. While this may look reliable, it is again a Wordpress blog (after scrolling the bottom it says Powered by WordPress) with limited editorial oversight excepting allowing readers to look for errors, which can be emailed. However, the fact-checking and editorial process is not provided, and there is no staff page whatsoever, so this Wordpress blog still a SPS. The MUBI entry is just a database entry and not a full SIGCOV-meeting article. Of the remaining references, all only appear to have one or two mentions while searching for the English name (i.e., Poor Cecily) or some minor variation. For one of the books, I can access mention the full page, and it clearly is a non-SIGCOV passing mention. However, two others are in a foreign language and partially paywalled. These are likely non-SIGCOV but I can not fully analyse these, so am neutral for now, but am curious if anyone can access the books via The Wikipedia Library (which seems unlikely). Thanks.  VickKiang  (talk)  07:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: The weight given to all the arguments here hinges on the two french (?) sources, which haven't been evaluated in depth. More discussion of these specifically would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:NFILM and GNG. Sources in article and above are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing with subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed nothing but database/directory style listings with brief mentions. Nothing that meets SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  01:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article has 8 sources and passes WP:NOTABILITY. I see nothing wrong with this article at all. Geko72290 (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Which of these sources are RS that meet GNG. Worthless vote as pure assertion. Delete due to lack of proper sourcing as above. Spartaz Humbug! 05:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Spartaz What do you mean lack of proper sourcing? The article literally has 8 sourced websites on it. I'm not changing my vote. Geko72290 (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Merely being sourced doesn't mean that the sources are SIGCOV, reliable, or independent.  VickKiang  (talk)  22:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete was unable to locate trustworthy coverage. The reliability of the sources mentioned in the article is, at best, questionable, and in some cases, blatantly unreliable. FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment/ Note that has been blocked as a sock.  VickKiang   (talk)  02:46, 29 October 2023 (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.