Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Ballers

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 109.77.193.78 (talk) at 17:07, 2 December 2023 (→‎Lady Ballers: Move to WP:DRAFTSPACE). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Lady Ballers

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

Lady Ballers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. The sources available on this consist of a few anti-trans outlets rallying for the movie's message, and a few pro-trans outlets rallying against it. In all this, there is remarkably little coverage of the film itself, which has received no professional reviews – not that surprising given that it's self-distributed. In addition to the sources already in the article, none of which are WP:GENREL, I found the following:

  • The Washington Times, mostly a quote-farm of people involved in the production, with only a few sentences about the film itself, questionable source.
  • LGBTQ Nation, only a few sentences providing secondary coverage of the film, not significant coverage.
  • PinkNews, not significant coverage about the film, but a pretty good summary of my argument here: Aside from the rabid excitement from transphobic commentators, the response to the Lady Ballers trailer so far has been rather underwhelming.
  • Out, this stays maybe the most focused on the subject, but is still not significant coverage and is only based on the trailer; nobody seems to have reviewed the actual film. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 13:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Conservatism, and Sexuality and gender. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 13:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: independent coverage by Newsweek tipped the notability scale for me, despite them misspelling the title. Owen× ☎ 13:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Newsweek is hardly the most reliable source either, and I don't think that really adds much either. Most of it is just quoting user-generated reviews and social media, with a few sentences of actual secondary coverage. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 14:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Independent coverage include:
  1. Decider
  2. Voz (Pt)
  3. Nashville Scene
  4. [1]
  5. YahooNews
  6. [2]
  7. [3]
  8. [4]
  9. [5]
So that the article can be improved and expanded. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Decider (website) is owned by WP:NYPOST
  2. I don't see how this is significant coverage. A sentence or two about the film, and a bunch of social media quotes.
  3. This looks ok, but really only tells us there were protestors at some of the filmings, and that the uni canceled.
  4. Blog, but by what seems like a serious critic so probably ok.
  5. Pride.com doesn't look like enough of an RS, and the author doesn't appear to be a professional critic.
  6. This doesn't seem like a reliable source, and it's another one of those articles with little substance but many twitter quotes.
  7. Looks like a blog, author seems to be only known for this blog.
  8. This is anything but RS.
  9. Blog by a serious critic, which would be okay, but it's also only based on the trailer and not as complete as I'd wish
As I see it, we have some bad sources, some more mediocre ones, and one or two blog posts by actual critics. So far, I'm not convinced that this film is actually notable. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lady_Ballers&oldid=1187974259"