Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girl Play


 * 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 keep. John254 17:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Girl Play

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article about a non-notable film, that has no references, other than an IMDb link. -- JediLofty UserTalk 15:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. imdb link is less then convincing --T-rex 16:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —• Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.   —PC78 (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Lack of references does not necessarily equate to non-notability. The IMDb link alone indicates that this is an award winning film by a notable director. A preliminary google search yields an article, a review, an interview and a festival screening, so clearly sources do exist which can form the basis of a more detailed article. A bit of research before bringing an article to AfD wouldn't go amiss. PC78 (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If the article included references I wouldn't need to research! I'm glad you managed to find some reliable sources - you can only imagine some of the websites that emerged when searching Google for "Girl Play"!  If, as you say, sources exist and are reliable, why not add them to the article? --  JediLofty UserTalk 10:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It appeared (to me) that this nomination was based solely on the lack of references in the article, so apologies if that was not the case. The sources I found came from a google search for "Girl Talk" + the director's name. But it's really not my responsibility to add them to the article. For one thing I'm not overly familiar with the film, and I've got plenty of other articles to work on. PC78 (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Rotten Tomatoes  links to a decent number of reviews of it in national papers, more than the two required by WP:MOVIE to establish notability.  Vickser (talk) 04:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per PC78 and Vickser. Notability seems evident and references available. Banje boi  15:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of LGBT related deletions. Pinkkeith (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Definitely needs some expansion but definitely a very notable lesbian film which has also aired on Logo multiple times.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.