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. Davewild (talk) 07:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Cactus[edit]

Wild Cactus (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)

A direct-to-video film with no significant coverage in external, reliable sources (I was just able to find one possible critic review at TV Guide). The article also doesn't have much content, other than a huge paragraph of plot and a claim that, "[a]lthough criticized, it is one of the best movies in 1993." Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 06:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 06:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm finding stuff here and there. I've cleaned the article somewhat and found a mention in an academic text. I did find this, which in the beginning search contained the text "Wild Cactus, about a defenceless woman held captive by a lusty, fugitive couple in the desert, is one such film. Written and directed by Mundhra...". Of course looking at the snapshot was unhelpful since it doesn't give a large view of the text as a whole, but it kind of gives off the impression that there may be more. The TV Guide review would be usable since it'd have been written by a staff member, although it would be helpful to have more sources, of course. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I found the full news story. ([1]) It looks like it was briefly mentioned, although it does mention a potential USA Today review. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Weak keep. I've spent some time thinking about this and ultimately there's just enough here for this film to squeak by notability guidelines. If it were just the reviews from TV Guide and Allmovie I'd probably support a redirect but there's also an academic source that goes into depth about the film. Granted it's somewhat in relation to the director's work as a whole but the film is prominently mentioned. What really pushed it was the India Today source that mentioned a USA Today review. I can't find the review in question (not surprising considering it was pre-Internet era) but these lines give off the assertion that it was enough of a review to where Wikipedia would count it as a RS. ("Written and directed by Mundhra, it was named by USA Today as the best sizzler among the recent crop of erotic thrillers. Film world sources predict it could end up making as much as $4 million in profits through video and theatre rights.") I won't protest too much if this ends up getting redirected, but I'd argue that if it does then it should redirect with history in case someone does find the pre-Internet coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in agreement with Tokyogirl79's analysis of the difficulty with pre-internet topics. Coverage is not overwhelming, but WP:NF is just met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:29, 20 June 2015 (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.