Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/She's Real, Worse Than Queer

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 because the keep arguments are not giving enough reasons for a valid inclusion of this article. The article is clearly lacking reliable sources and hence does not conform with WP:V. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She's Real, Worse Than Queer[edit]

I cannot find this film on IMDB. Google produces many Wikipedia mirrors and gay film sites acknowledging its existence but with little else to say. I suspect it therefore fails WP:NOTABLE. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears (from the mentions in my comment below) to be a notable lesbian film. IMDb isn't perfect, especially with regard to video-documentaries. Unsure why a gay film site, or even Planet Out, isn't considered a reliable source. Edited because I forgot to login. --Charlene 20:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Not only is it non-notable, it doesn't even exist. --Dennisthe2 19:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It does exist: check out its listings at the British Film Institute and at Planet Out and a mention in a syllabus at Tulane University. --Charlene 20:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, thanks for the pointer. It only downgrades me to delete, though, on account of a failure to assert notability. --Dennisthe2 00:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article asserts notability in the first sentence by identifying the film as a seminal documentary about a specific period in the queer punk movement. Otto4711 04:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The BFI page doesn't exist, the PlanetOut one acknowledges it exists but doesn't say anything else, and the third one doesn't mention the film at all. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (I had no trouble accessing the BFI page.) I found no mentions in Google News Archive, and just one citation -- in a listing of "other" queer films inside a book devoted to them -- in Google Books. It seems to exist, but it does not seem notable, let alone "seminal" by any citation. --Dhartung | Talk 21:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can see it now too. Weird. But it didn't tell me anything that made the film notable... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Console-ing Passions is an academic film festival that was held at Tulane, not a syllabus. This seems to meet The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. 2004 > 1997 by seven years. --Dhartung | Talk 04:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on proposed Wikipedia:Notability (films) guidelines which say in relevant part that if a film is taught at an accredited university with a recognized film department. I'll accept the Tulane syllabus as evidence of meeting that criterion until such time as it's demonstrated untenable. Otto4711 21:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. IMDb and Google are not a litmus test. Wikipedia is not a mainstream media vehicle, there are most certainly things in any encyclopedia you will find only spurious mention of anywhere outside encyclopedias or universities. —Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the notability and verafiability have not been established. Eedo Bee 05:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: the above user has been blocked indefinitely for harassment of the LGBT WikiProject)
Delete. Although notability is asserted, it doesn't seem to be clear from the referenced sources that the film actually is notable. If this really were a "seminal" work ( can a lesbian film be "seminal" ? perhaps we mean "ovular" ? ) I'd expect a clear reference to a suitable professional or critical source, and this isn't provided ( the only link is to what appears to be a film festival's programme notes ). WMMartin 13:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, verifiability unquestionable given the reference on the BFI site. Notability in my opinion comes from it being a documentary whose subject matter is unusual (I won't say unique as I can't prove that). Malla nox 00:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google search would indicate that it exists. I see no reason for deletion. — Emiellaiendiay 06:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and a laugh at WMMartin. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The existance does not seem to meet the requirements for notability, more importantly, the article makes a vast number of complete unsourced statements with no sourcing per WP:RS. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 06:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Elaragirl and WMMartin -- unsourced statements (it hasn't been shown that they're fixable), still unproven notability; proof of existence isn't good enough; if it's seminal, that should be readily provable. Noroton 19:38, 14 February 2007 (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.