Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/That Malicious Age


 * 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. Consensus is that the subject passes WP:NFILM as it has multiple independent critical reviews. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

That Malicious Age

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. This article is present on other Wikipedias, but none appear to have enough RS citations that pass the bar for significant coverage. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:BEFORE. It was reviewed by Paolo Mereghetti for Il Mereghetti (has an entry in its 2001, 2002, 2006, 2016 editions), by Marco Giusti for Dizionario dei film stracult, and under its French title in La Revue du cinéma num. 368. It was also reviewed by influential Italian critic Francesco Savio for Il Mondo, his review being included in the book Il mondo di Francesco Savio: recensioni, 1973-1976 (pp. 215-6). Considering it has a notable director and two major stars of the Italian cinema of the time and it was released in numerous countries there is certainly a lot more digging (eg. I have not searched under its English or German titles, and Google Books suggests it was reviewed by other notable publications like Bianco e Nero and Cinéma but the lack of previews make it inconclusive), but I think there is already enough for regard it as notable. I have added a critical reception section to the page. --151.53.78.153 (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the reviews by notable critics detailed above. This seems to be a higher quality production in terms of artistic merit than the general erotic trash, passes WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:NFILM per multiple independent critical reviews provided above.4meter4 (talk) 04:07, 4 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.