Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Witches of Breastwick (2nd nomination)

{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|F}}

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=The Witches of Breastwick}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=The Witches of Breastwick}})

Not notable. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: I don't find sources that Project Horror uses [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Horror/Sources], so that's of no help. This is the only sort of review in a source I could find [https://terror.ca/movie/tt1175522], I'm not sure if that's a RS or not. Oaktree b (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable.Nickm57 (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Delete: Shows no notability. CabinetCavers (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: Bordering speedy given the lack of BEFOREs in various nominations by the same nominator and their barely acceptable rationale. In this case the BEFORE was just reading the page....The film meets Wp:NFILM as the subject of a notable documentary (see NFO section and reception in the article); a redirect to the director should have been considered anyway so that deletion should have been completely off the table. -Mushy Yank. 21:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:

• Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 18:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Added a few things + [https://forum.dvdtalk.com/dvd-reviews-recommendations/441491-dvd-talk-reviews-october-13th-2005-a-printthread.html there was a review] at DVD Talk (generally accepted for notability) but it's not online anymore. If anyone has access to it, please let us know. -Mushy Yank. 19:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::All in all, although some of the numerous existing sources are from niche sites (such as http://www.thevideograveyard.com/w/witchesofbreastwick.html http://sexgoremutants.co.uk/reviews/witchbrdble.html etc), I think the fact it was the subject of a notable documentary makes it "policy-based notable", to which one can add the fact that many sources list it as infamously bad or note the presence of Stormy Daniels, among other things. -Mushy Yank. 19:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep The way it looks now I think the film passes GNG.★Trekker (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep The sources used are of vague prominence but the fact that this even has reviews independent of the documentary about it (in addition to the latter existing) makes this seem notable. The article is in a better place than it was prior to nomination. -- Reconrabbit 16:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:

• Keep per the work done by mushy yank and the poor deletion rationale Scooby453w (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)