Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Witches of Breastwick


 * 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 of the debate was Delete.  Dei zio  talk 12:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The Witches of Breastwick
No evidence of notability. Just another vague soft-core porn flick. Delete along with the redirect The Wicthes of Breastwick. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 00:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep 22,200 google hits, seems notable enough. ILovePlankton 04:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, as it is now. The article is absolutely horribly written, and if there's any notability, it's not asserted. --Coredesat 05:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a synopsis of a porno. Uh.......................................................... -- Alphachimp   talk  06:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Seems notable enough?  WTF?  This is crap. Erik the Rude 06:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Something about your comment just keeps me laughing. -- Alphachimp   talk  06:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete although I'm inclined to ask for userfication since this must be the most riveting synopsis I've ever read. Was this guy typing with his left hand? ~ trialsanderrors 08:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Sorry for playing Devil's advocate here, but this is no different from any of the other film entries we get. It's got an IMDB entry. Last time I checked icnlusion guidelines for films weren't that strict and we should be any harder on porn flicks. - Mgm|(talk) 09:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It wouldn't matter if this weren't a porn movie. The problem here is that this article is just a synopsis, and nothing more. No notability is asserted anywhere in it. --Coredesat 10:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. —Centrx→talk 20:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete --->|Newyorktimescrossword 20:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)|
 * Delete appallingly badly written and no notability.--Anthony.bradbury 13:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. As good or even better than our other porn movie articles. --JJay 22:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh wow. Examples? ~ trialsanderrors 22:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as it is simply a synopsis with no notability given. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No assertion of notability Eluchil404 05:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not only is the article written in present-tense broken English, but it contains virtually no information about the movie whatsoever, just an unneccessarily detailed summary. Even if the film has notability, I seriously doubt that there can be enough information about it to write a Wikipedia article about it (I mean a real artilce, not the one that currently exists).

205.188.116.133 22:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I think the description of the movie as "pornographic" may be confusing things. Though I have not seen it, I think it might be better described as erotic horror or softcore.  The director and at least some of the performers are known genre stalwarts and the movie has several reviews by known review sites such as DVD Talk http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0478833/externalreviews The Amazon sales ranking is not especially high or low  Шизомби 07:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable movie, sorry.-- Tdxi an  g  08:42, 27 June 2006 (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.