Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Love Patient


 * 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) — Sam Sailor 01:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The Love Patient

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. Plot-only summary of a film, which makes no substantive claim of notability per WP:NFILMS and is sourced almost entirely to primary sources and blogs -- the closest thing to a reliable source here is its page on Rotten Tomatoes, and the only review present on that page is by an online film critic who reviews films only on his own blog rather than in a real media outlet. As always, a film is not automatically entitled to have an article just because it exists -- but nothing written or sourced here suggests that it's notable enough to have earned one. Bearcat (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. I found two reviews:  from San Diego Gay and Lesbian News and  from DVD Verdict.  There are also a few scattered trivial mentions, such as  from the Tampa Bay Times.  It's not much, but it's better than nothing.  I admit that a review in DVD Verdict doesn't carry the same weight as Variety or The Hollywood Reporter, but I'd consider it reliable.  Not 100% sure about SDGLN, but it seems reliable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per meeting WP:NF even if not having the same extensive coverage as a big studio's highly touted and promoted blockbuster.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 08:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was kind of hoping there might be more discussion, but I guess I'll err on the side of caution.  There does seem to be coverage, as listed above, even if it's a bit lighter than I usually like to see.  An IP editor recently added a few more sources to the article.  I haven't gone over them carefully, but they seem a bit questionable.  Still, maybe we can use one or two. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2016 (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.