Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Love Box


 * 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 no consensus. Star  Mississippi  21:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The Love Box

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

Fails NFILM and GNG. Single source in article is to an interview with the director. BEFORE showed nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from Ind RS.  // Timothy :: talk  14:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Have added some extra information and references and links. By all accounts not a very good movie but it did play in cinemas and Tudor Gates and Wilbur Stark are notable people.Britfilm (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you . Would it be correct to assume that you think the page should be kept? — MY, OH, MY ! 20:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes I think so Britfilm (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * .Then you might want to write Keep in bold somewhere in your comment, to make that clear, I presume. — MY, OH, MY ! 22:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank youBritfilm (talk) 04:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 15:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donald D23   talk to me  18:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep page improved with sources since this discussion started. There is also this review for example.The film was released internationally, under the Sp title  El Buzon del placer and distributed in Fr as  Les Chatouilleuses volcaniques. —  MY, OH, MY ! 20:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The improved sourcing is still just a tad below what I’d be comfortable with under NFILM. I see scattered confirmation it was indeed a film and did indeed play in theaters. I see a user-generated review on The Spinning Image. I see a primary source interview with the author. I see a brief mention in a book. I’m just not seeing the sort of independent, in-depth, secondary reliable sourcing material, or a large body of lesser quality sourcing, to demonstrate notability here. Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. A film doesn't inherit notabiliy if its creators. I checked gBooks, too, and found mentions like "unremarkable British sex film". 20:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitskvarts (talk • contribs)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: Various mentions that this British comedy is typical of its time would tend to place this perhaps unremarkable film on the notable side, I suppose. Just like the comments the film received on ImdB ( I know WP does not use it as a source ) or its presence as a good example of the 'Art of the Nasty'. The film is also repeatedly mentioned for the originally uncredited presence of Marianne Morris (Vampyres/(Daughters of Darkness)). All in all, with what's now on the page and also given national and international distributions are verifiable, as well as video releases, it seems acceptable without blushing. NB: Alt. titles: (The) Lovebox and The Sex Box (the Internet does not exactly help when you input such words ...) — MY, OH, MY ! 14:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep – Since the article was nominated for deletion – 1 1/2 hours after its creation, four more sources from newspapers and one mention as an example of sexploitation in a book have been added. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak Keep. Both the following sources provide significant coverage, even if the first one barely does so.
 * 1) Danger of a yawn with 'porn'". Evening Post. 30 September 1972. p. 7.
 * 2) https://web.archive.org/web/20151011124744/https://www.thespinningimage.co.uk/cultfilms/displaycultfilm.asp?reviewid=4375
 * The second one isn't exactly the New York Times. But it content that is interesting, could be useful to people, is not promotional and is a net positive to the project. CT55555 (talk) 18:22, 7 April 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.