Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS

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 speedy keep. No valid rationale provided and no reasonable chance of being deleted. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article describes a controversial exploitation film released in 1975. However, its Wikipedia article was first created and edited in June 2022, decades after the film's release, raising concerns about the timing and motivation behind its creation. The film uses the common female name "Ilsa", "Anata, associating it with violent and degrading depictions, which could lead to real-world stigmatization and bullying. Furthermore, the film holds limited cultural or historical significance, and its explicit content makes it unsuitable for an open-access platform. I propose deletion as the societal harm outweighs any academic or cultural relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaimingmingde (talk • contribs) 18:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Germany, Canada, and United States of America. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because most of the deletion rationale doesn't make sense. Toughpigs (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and no notability rationale has been provided. Simonm223 (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article easily passes WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. It is one of the best known films for the Nazi exploitation genre, and is notable in the grindhouse theatre circles. I've no idea what the nominator means about names? Are you saying because the character is called Isla? If so, that's not a rational reason for deletion. It might not be yours or mine cup of tea, but it's a well referenced article and easily passes notability guidelines. Knitsey (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion proposal should be evaluated based on the article's content, its societal impact, and its compliance with Wikipedia's policies, not on the identity or number of proposers. The focus should remain on whether the content is appropriate for a public platform. Plus, this series of articles describes exploitation films from the 1970s with explicit pornographic content, featuring a Nazi officer as a protagonist engaging in sexual acts with prisoners. These films not only glorify sexual violence and objectify women but also risk promoting unhealthy fantasies about Nazism among immature male audiences. Such content is deeply inappropriate for a public platform like Wikipedia, which is accessible to users of all ages. The timing of the articles' more languages' creation (2022–2023) further suggests potential misuse for malicious or inappropriate purposes. Zaimingmingde (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how Wikipedia works. Articles are created based on notability (links are in my comment above) which in turn require reliable sources. This film easily passes that criteria. The article was created in 2004. If you're saying it has recently been translated into other Wikipedia articles, this is the English language Wikipedia and it has no say in what happens in other language versions. Whatever you do, don't read the article for A Seribian Film. As others have pointed out, Wikipedia does not censor most material on this site. There are dozens of films in the exploitation genre. Wikipedia doesn't censor this. Knitsey (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the most notorious exploitation films of all time. Deletion rationale feels like a case of WP:OZD. Madam Fatal (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Disruptive nomination. -Mushy Yank. 19:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: It being about something gross dosen't mean we delete it. WP:SNOW close. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Indisputably a notable film and the nomination is not policy based and amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Cullen328 (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2024 (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.