Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"L" is for Love

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 redirect to List of The Loud House episodes#Season 2 (2016–17). The quality of the sources fail to back-up the lone keep !vote. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 06:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"L" is for Love[edit]

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

This article pretty much fails to meet WP:GNG and seems to just be based on one editor's opinion that because it has to do with LGBT, that in itself is sufficient enough reason for it to have its own article. It's not. Plus, this topic is pretty common for most series nowadays, so it's not like this is making history or anything. Additionally, most of the sources are primary sources, coming from the episode itself. There are no secondary sources, such as Deadline, that cover this in an extensive manner. Also notice that no other episodes in the series have their own articles, just this one, even though the LGBT implications aren't only in "L Is for Love." Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Possibly TOOSOON, but I cannot find any RS for this episode other than the Autostraddle already in the article and this other source. But that doesn't seem sufficient to meet GNG. Delete for now, recreate if more sources pop up. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Loud House episodes#Season 2 (2016–17) This is a 'type-what-I-see' recap; the episode's content is definitely groundbreaking, but our standard 'a summary should cover it' in the season article works just as well. Nate • (chatter) 22:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that LGBT+ topics are "pretty common for most series nowadays", the fact that LGBT topics in the show aren't limited to this episode, and the fact that this is the only episode with a page is all irrelevant. There's no rule saying that the episode has to necessarily be a major thing that makes history. Also, there are TONS of examples of other shows that have up episode pages with far less then this. (see this, this, this, just to name a few) Several weaker episode pages have survived for years with no production section at all and one or two reception links. Grapesoda22 (✉) 23:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Another reception source has been found and added to the page since this nomination. Grapesoda22 (✉) 02:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the URL of the source indicates it's a blog, so not RS. But this one could work. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: It is more of an article. The page (like all pages on the site) is not referred to as a blog anywhere besides the URL. The site does not allow users to add their own content, meaning it was formally written by a staff member of the website. Grapesoda22 (✉) 01:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it doesn't allow editing doesn't mean it's reliable. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if the Geeks OUT page is no good, the page now has 3 formal reviews (on top of the well-cited ratings info) and a better sourced production section. Grapesoda22 (✉) 11:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Loud House episodes#Season 2 (2016–17), does not need a separate page, inadequate coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- 19 respectable sources covering the topic is hardly "inadequate coverage". Grapesoda22 (✉) 19:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - 14 of those don't count as they are either primary sources—from the episodes themselves—or just reporting the ratings. There are hardly any sources from secondary sources covering this. This isn't a note-worthy article. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - 12 of the sources you are referring to do not just come from "the episodes themselves", they are external links from respectable sources giving valid information on the topic. Ratings data is incredibly relevant information on the topic worth covering in depth in this context. Grapesoda22 (✉) 13:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ratings have no relevance as to whether this deserves its own article or not. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I never said that ratings information alone justifies this article. I meant that well sourced and valid non-universe information by no means has "no relevance". Grapesoda22 (✉) 13:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Regardless, more than 90% of the sources are either primary sources, from the episodes themselves, or ratings information, neither of which is enough to justify this having its own article. There are no secondary sources, such as Deadline or Variety; therefore, it is not notable. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        You're just repeating your same comments at this point. There is no rule saying that Deadline or Variety are a requirement for an article. I have provided plenty of good sources for this page. Having sources from those sites aren't necessary at this point. Grapesoda22 (✉) 20:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        'Kay. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To clarify whether to keep as is or to redirect. Straight-up deletion without redirecting or merging seems not a policy-based option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is fine. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:36, 12 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.