Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whatever Lola Wants (film)


 * 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. § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Whatever Lola Wants (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Tagged for notability since January 2012. I personally think it is notable because it presumably meets WP:GNG and involved established director and actors (Nabil Ayouch and Laura Ramsey). But since there are at least 3 users who think this is not notable (One who added the tag+2 who reverted removal of the tag) then maybe there is a consensus to delete/redirect it. Tachfin (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Article provides all of two dead links and one to picture's iMDB entry. Just because it involved a director and actors with WP articles does not mean this film merits an article--many, perhaps most, film people have some non-notable crud on their CV's. And "presumably meets WP:GNG"--huh? GNG says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Commercially, it seems to have been an utter flop--is there evidence that it received any proper theatrical release at all? Did this work just receive some token coverage before it sank out of site, or can you provide evidence of the "significant coverage" that GNG requires? And if you can, why are you nominating this article for deletion instead of improving it? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The links provided in the heading of the nomination, include leads that it received coverage. Additionally, having been directed by an established director such as Nabil Ayouch, it is reasonable to assume that, at the time of its release, the movie received relatively significant coverage in the media. Also, bear in mind there is a book of the same title (Whatever Lola Wants). Some additional coverage in French here Tachfin (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've found several reviews as well as mention in a couple of academic texts. I've also found coverage here and here, although the second is in French and would require someone fluent to discover what it says. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Tokyogirl79 has massively improved the article, including adding many more refs than suggested by vote above. Well done. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Procedural close, invalid nom This is the most pointy nom I have seen in years. Tachfin had been edit-warring about a notability tag, just asserting that the aricle was notable but, unlike Tolyogirl79, left it at that. When they were reverted they started this AFD. Tachfin has been edit warring about notability tags at other, similarly insufficiently sourced articles, too. They seem to be unable to grasp the difference between a notability tag, which indicates an article may not meet the notability guidelines, and an AFD, which one starts because, after going through WP:BEFORE (with Tachfin not giving the slightest indication of having followed), one feels that an article is not notable. Tags are for cases like this, where notability may exist but is not shown in the article itself. Now that Tokyogirl79 has improved the article, this AFD can be closed speedily (no "delete" !votes left, no valid nom) and no tag is necessary an more. --Randykitty (talk) 08:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment on content not people, plain slander on your part, this is not about me but about the article. Since your comment is entirely composed of unfounded smear-grumpy accusations at me, I inform everybody that the only times I've ever (ever) undid something in relation to a maintenance tag was with you involved, and that was ONLY twice. Once in Maroc Hebdo where you added a notability tag to something that was sky-blue-obviously notable, and which you let down after being proved that you were ridiculously wrong and exhibited a ridiculous behaviour by edit-warring over an inappropriate tag in a sourced few-hours-old stub. And this one where you followed me from another completely unrelated dispute just to undo me because I undid someone (how to call that childish? trollish?).
 * Re the article, I am neutral and as explained above, the reason I initially presumed it meets GNG was because the director is well known so I assumed it got coverage. But because multiple editors (3 different editors including you) deemed it necessary to tag it for questionable notability then maybe they had a point, and because provisional Google search did not return something that would amount to "significant coverage" (and not only mentions) especially that there were results about the homonymous book too. This is what AFDs are for; attract community's attention on articles that potentially fail notability guidelines. BTW, why didn't you, unlike Tolyogirl79, improve the article instead if unproductively undoing? Whether here or in Maroc Hebdo, you did not make any honest attempt to assess the notability of the article, choosing instead to edit-war over a tag and ask others to do what is equally your duty, WP:SOFIXIT, you know. Tachfin (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I look forward to your AfD of the notability tag. Note that Maroc Hebdoc (although not the subject here) still has no sources indicating notability (nor does it even have a claim in the article that it is somehow notable). That I gave up in the face of your edit-warring does not mean that I was "proved ridiculously wrong". Instead of wasting everybody's time with your antics, you should work on improving articles like that, instead of creating badly-sourced stubs and fighting with other people. And I really do like your sense of humor: "Comment on content not people" indeed! :-D --Randykitty (talk) 12:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 08:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per MichaelQSchmidt & Tokyogirl79's massive improvements (Thanks & ), I see no reason for deletion now. – Davey 2010  •  (talk)  17:52, 15 July 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.