Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape and revenge films


 * 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 as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Rape and revenge films

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

As far as I can tell from the viewable sources, this isn't actually a well-known subgenre of exploitation films. If anything, at BEST, this should be merged into the exploitation films parent article. My view is that it should be deleted outright. Unit Anode  04:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article lists notable examples of the genre, such as Baise-moi, and thereby establishes the notability of the genre. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Further evidence that the genre is notable can be found at this IMDb page. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  — Eastmain (talk • contribs)  09:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: Article cites many references supporting it's notability, including academic works (see the Men, Women, and Chainsaws citation). Could certainly stand to be cleaned up, but shouldn't be deleted outright. Luvcraft (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep a notable sub-genre, as proven by the refs on the article.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable subject covering notable subjects.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep. Bueller 007 (talk) 06:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - it could be way improved but the topic meets WP:GNG. -- Cycl o pia talk  17:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SNOW, WP:BEFORE, and WP:PRESERVE. Nominator acknowledges potential for merge, thus AFDing it instead of considering other options first is disruptive and as evidenced by the unanimous keeps that followed the nomination.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The genre clearly exist.  D r e a m Focus  06:09, 29 January 2010 (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.