Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore gay films

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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore gay films

Relisting for deletion after no consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore public gay parties.

Delete as unverifiable original research and indiscriminate. From WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics...". Also "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought: Critical reviews...". I'm not questioning the verifiability of the specific films; if they're notable they should have their own articles. However, loosely associating them in this fashion is original research. -- Krash (Talk) 15:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep --Terence Ong 15:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep for now; then Keep if relisted after a proper month wait. Notable, verifiable, and properly cited. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • A "proper month wait"? What official policy is that a reference to? Stifle 23:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It could certainly have a more grammatical title. Perhaps "LGBT-related films of Singapore" (taking my lead from "Category:LGBT-related films") or Singaporean LGBT-themed films. Beyond the fact that "Singapore gay films" is ungrammatical, it's also inaccurate. "Gay" referes specifically to male-male relationships, while the listed films also deal with lesbians and transvestites.

I'd also suggest distinguishing cutting films from other countries that were banned in Singapore, but have no production ties to the country. --djrobgordon 20:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Scranchuse 21:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Maybe not the most relevant article on WP but still worth keeping --Splette Talk 23:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopaedic and unverified. I can reconsider if references are added. Stifle 23:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 00:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup Leidiot 02:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; could use cleanup but it's referenced and topical and the subject is at least somewhat notable. Perhaps a rename at some point, other than via AfD (talk page discussion). Georgewilliamherbert 03:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: "it's referenced"? Are we looking at different articles? Stifle 14:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, all films are found in imdb. Keep article; instead, remove or tag individual sections or sentences appropriately if there is any remaining concern of "original research" content. --Vsion 09:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is verifiable, and mostly not indiscriminate. It is about LGBT Singapore as portrayed in film, and LGBT filmmaking in Singapore. It is a useful compilation of interesting information that could not readily be found otherwise. No need for a second AFD in two weeks. Wuzzy 15:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not enough notable films in the category. From article: "there is to date not a single film entirely produced by Singaporeans in Singapore belonging to this genre". Most films listed either have little connection to Singapore(Beautiful Boxer) or have non substantial LGBT plots(Army Daze, 15). -- Dodo bird 08:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable and not indiscriminate. Kappa 10:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. --Mallarme 11:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable and linked. Carlossuarez46 18:48, 8 March 2006 (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.