Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queer Latinos in Cinema


 * 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. (non-admin closure) czar ♔   03:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Queer Latinos in Cinema

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is not a neutral encyclopedia article about a defined topic, but rather an essay which is serving to advance a POV thesis about representation of LGBT Latinos in film. For example, this starts off with a definition of the word queer, and then digresses into a section giving background on queer cinema in general, starting with Rocky Horror Picture Show and winding through Brokeback Mountain (I love both films, of course, but their relevance to an article about Latino film is eluding me), and then cites just six examples out of the hundreds of possible queer-Latino films to support its thesis statement. (And we'll never mind that one of those six films, O Fantasma, is from Portugal and thus fails to even be an example of Latin American anything, even though that's what it's being cited as an example of. If that counts, then where's Pedro Almodovar? Contradicting the thesis, that's where.) And for added bonus, three of the seven citations here are to the films themselves, as seen on DVD or Netflix, rather than to any critical analysis which would verify this article's thematic assumptions — and two of the other four are supporting that non-Latino Rocky-Brokeback digression, to boot. It might be possible to write a real encyclopedia article about this topic, but this ain't it — it's a first-year film studies essay. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep since the topic does exist. The article is in bad shape, though, and should be reduced to a stub. Here are the sources I found:
 * (with chapters "Gay pornography as Latin American queer historiography" and "Quo vadis, queer vato? Queer and loathing in Latino cinema")
 * I also suggest renaming the article, perhaps LGBT cinema in Latin America. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I also suggest renaming the article, perhaps LGBT cinema in Latin America. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I also suggest renaming the article, perhaps LGBT cinema in Latin America. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. If someone's willing to do the necessary overhaul to make it less of an essay, it could stand (the title might need work, though, as Latinos in the US, outside of Latin America, are also present in the film examples). I've removed some of the irrelevant background. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's important to keep in mind, however, that if everybody's voted keep because a better article about this topic is possible, but nobody actually does take on the necessary overhaul, then we get stuck keeping this in its existing form. I think WP:NUKEANDPAVE pertains here — we have to get rid of this version and let a new one develop from the ground up. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm typically a strong supporter of nuking, but I think an incomplete list of films and a short paragraph on themes (assuming the latter is summarizing the secondary sources, rather than engaging in original research; haven't looked at the sources) is better than a blasted pavement –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, most educational and encyclopedic. Good amount of coverage in secondary sources. I've been bold and moved it per the excellent suggestion of, above. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2014 (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.