Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexual Witchcraft

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 delete. ✗plicit 00:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Witchcraft

Sexual Witchcraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable erotic film, lacking significant coverage or other indications of notability per

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I looked through several sources directly and could not find anything to help this pass NFILM or even GNG. Compared to other erotic films I have seen this has received relatively low coverage. At the critical reception section, it mentions negative reviews from Dr. Gore's Movie Reviews (which is unreliable as it is self-published and hosted on
  talk) 23:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as there is a lack of reliable sources coverage of this film. For example it has no entry at all at Rotten Tomatoes. Regarding Video Vacuum here it is a blog, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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.