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. Michig (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bikini Jones and the Temple of Eros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Unremarkable film, as per WP:NFILM Ciao Mane (talk) 11:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It has Oklahoma Gazette, Blogcritics, and DVD Verdict reviews. Admittedly no Citizen Kane but the sources push it over the edge for me. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 16:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Reviews are not persuasive sources for retention. It's a cheap direct-to-cable porn movie of no notability and an article of no substance. Utterly unnecessary! --Drmargi (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is cheesy film with some very bad acting and really bad dialog, but for films... good ones or stinkers... reviews ARE the expected "persuasive sources for retention" to meet WP:NF. Even with this bit of dreck having coverage in lots of unreliable sources, it does have enough coverage in actually reliable sources to meet notability criteria. And THAT is what is required. So pardon me Drmargi, but even with it being a poor film with little substance, films being reviewed in reliable sources are exactly what allows a keep per WP:NF. When considering policy and guidelines, simply feeling it "utterly unnecessary" does not apply, and neither does WP:DONTLIKEIT and WP:USELESS. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. With due respect to Drmargi's argument, reviews of a film in reliable sources mean that it passes WP:GNG, which is all that is required. Whether or not it also passes WP:NFILM is irrelevant, as WP:GNG applies to all kinds of content. JulesH (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above. J 1982 (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• note to closing admin J 1982 (talk · contribs) has made a spree of 23 identical keep as above !votes in 29 minutes. LibStar (talk) 12:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added a few citations. Believe me, I'm no fan of Fred Olen Ray, but this film received a fair bit of coverage for bottom of the barrel softcore Cinemax erotica. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2014 (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.