Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School Girl (film)


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 02:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

School Girl (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No evidence of passing WP:NOTFILM EuroPride (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC) *Delete - The Narch 29th citation isn't enough for me, and other than that, the singular reference by the same magazine (maybe) twice isn't convincing enough either. Shadowjams (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC) That said, in respect of your work adding to the article and some indications, I would be willing to change my opinion if there was some media attention that meets WP:RS outside of Corliss. Shadowjams (talk) 11:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Week Keep: Per Schmidt. Joe Chill (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per meeting WP:NF. Anyone care to visit a mainstream review?  For a porn film THAT's a rarity.  Here it is as reviewed by Time Magazine's Richard Corliss and amazingly is listed as one of Time's "ALL-TIME 100 best films".   Go figure.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ??? So having two different reviews a month apart by a notable and respected reviewer in a reliable mainstream source such as Time Magazine is not enough for you? And you don't think it being on their list of "All-Time 100 best films" is worth considering??  That's pretty darn incredible for a porn film. Such just does not happen unless a film is indeed worthy of note.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it is the same author in both articles. The other cite [that you added after my comment] is from a DC Circuit case that only confirms that it's pornographic enough to seek out if you're looking for porn. It's not that I have something against DC Circuit approved porn, it's that I find that such an interesting piece of film might have been referred to elsewhere, except despite all the bytes spilled thus far, the 3 refs on the page are all we've come up with, and even among them it's still a little unclear whether the link to the director is the direct link. I could change my mind; I do find your explanation with Corliss convincing... but there's a lot of campy porn out there, just because a Time magazine writer is into it doesn't make it especially noteworthy on its own.


 * Keep The Times article proves its notable. http://www.time.com/time/columnist/corliss/article/0,9565,1043267-5,00.html That's the only easy find when the title of the film and the lead actress are searched together in Google news.  D r e a m Focus  14:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This search in Gbooks reveals enough coverage to warrant a separate article. Also it seems to in the porn studies curriculum at Pitzer College--Sodabottle (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep moved from delete - Google book and curriculum sources meet my criteria; changing !vote as discussed above. Shadowjams (talk) 19:09, 27 April 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.