Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lo Loves You

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 delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lo Loves You

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

No evidence is provided that this short film is notable Grahame (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 03:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Citations were provided indicating it was screened in the major cities of Australia. It has also earned notability as an important new artistic endeavor by the director. It is notable in its genre as being a film short that escapes some of the standard tropes. This genre is itself a niche -- being an LGBT film directed by a woman. That it had a continent-wide screening is a breakthrough development and is notable in itself. Thanks much. GetSomeUtah (talk) 08:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We need those citations here. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For instance, I found a few NOT in the article: Velvet I-D Vice The Brag Heaps Gay Teen Vogue but I do not have access to Australian search engines. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Heapsgay and i-D are the #1 and #2 references of the article, and velvet is there too. Perhaps you were looking at an earlier version of the article. As for Schmidt's comment regarding putting the citations here, are you asking that the article be duplicated on this discussion page? I'm new at this. The citations (currently 7) are prominently displayed on the article page. GetSomeUtah (talk) 08:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but most of those citations speak toward her earlier film. Non-blog commentary meeting WP:RS are needed speaking about this latest. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. My understanding is that Ms. Rhodes has made only one film ("Lo Loves You"), and my reading of the citations is that they all refer to that one film. If I am mistaken, forgive me. GetSomeUtah (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I really wanted to !vote keep here, but I just can't see the depth. Yes, it has been screened in some big cities, but apart from one screening in Newtown where it was the curtain-raiser for another film, I'm not seeing any details of that screening. These screenings could have been to half a dozen people in someone's lounge room. This uncertainty gets back to the lack of good secondary sources about the film itself; what we do have that is substantial is mostly primary source material or not about the film itself. I'm sure it's a good film and I wish it all the success, but at the moment it just doesn't have the depth of coverage that we need to write a decent and neutral article about it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Delete - for almost all the identical reasons explained by Lankiveil. Screenings are not the same thing as being released in theaters. Not enough good in-depth coverage from independent sources to show it meets WP:GNG, and it does not appear to meet WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also to discuss whether this could be merged/redirected to Cloudy Rhodes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Lankiveil - GretLomborg (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2017 (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.