Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yours Emotionally

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 Keeping, no consensus to delete. Until (1 == 2) 15:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yours Emotionally[edit]

Delete - This is non notable film [1].--Sov3 06:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No respected reviews. I couldn't find the one the New York Times supposedly ran, and the rest I checked seem to be either gay or alternative papers of little note. Abstain due to Scarykitty's comments. Not being able to locate the NYT review put me in a suspicious frame of mind. Clarityfiend 08:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Delete~~. No sources besides the production company's link to the trailer. Fails notability.Archon of Atlantis 09:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because a news source is a "gay or alternative papers" does not mean it is of little note. The standard for notability is coverage by independent sources. This film was chosen for the LGBT Film Festivals of San Francisco, New York and Amsterdam, practically the trifecta of gay life on this planet. In general, being chosen for film festivals is what establishes notability of independent films depicting sub cultures or themes that won't make their way into mainstream theaters. Further, the LGBT film festival season is just starting, so an inquiry into the future screeings of this film is warranted before voting for deletion. Finally, the NYT website is a bit screwy. If you search on "Yours Emotionally" in Movies (not movie listings), something does come up, but when you click on it, you are returned to the main Movies page. So I don't think the NYT link on the page is meant to be misleading. Other reviews are hampered by most online media's tendency to be put behind a pay-per-view subscription after a few weeks. I would suggest to other editors that they add the proper source information for the reviews (e.g., author, title, publication and date), and not just the links. Scarykitty 13:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note I agree that the credibility of a source is not dependent on its mainstream appeal, however, I contend that stand-alone film reviews does not establish notability. As of this time, there are currently 13 user-submitted ratings for this film on the Internet Movie Database. Another film centered around an alternative lifestyle, and could generally be assumed to be viewed by the same LGBT community, A Home at the End of the World, has 4,362 user-submitted ratings at the Internet Movie Database. While no single source could be considered a litmus test for notability, this apparent difference in the awareness of the target communinity to the film's existance is disturbing. I am going to hold my vote per Scarykitty until the LGBT film festival has an opportunity to establish notability. Archon of Atlantis 05:06, 25 July 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.