I think it depends on who you ask, really. If LF means sheet film only, no. But then there are cameras that take sheet film sizes from 4x6.5 cm, which is considered a medium format size... It's one of those zen koans - it's something that bends your mind out of shape.
Prints reveals truths that negative scans obscures.
I agree that it's how you look at it. Many people consider the Hasslblad XPan to be medium format; some say because one dimension is long enough to qualify as medium format; some say it is because the lens has to have a medium format sized image circle.
I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.
I don't care about the film size. When I think of large format, I think of view cameras. I have owned a 5x7 point and shoot (Hobo) and it was very far from my view cameras (kept the lens and sold the body for what I paid for the both, which was the reason for buying it). When I shoot 6x17 or 6x12 on my 4x5 I think of it as large format because the camera setup is the same with the possibility of full movements. I imagine if I had a 6x17 that used a focus helical it wouldn't feel like large format.
To me it's the camera that makes LF. To others it's the film area, and to others it's the use of sheet film. I say don't worry about it and buy the camera you want, irregardless of how other people label it.
In my mind the LF, MF, and miniature format designations are more about the camera body design and handling than about the film substrate.
I think of film classified by size. 120 is 120. Sheet film is sheet film. I don't think the distinctions make as much sense for the film. I have often wondered why people spend hundreds of dollars for a 6 x 12 roll film adapter when there is a perfectly usable 6 x 12 image in a 4 x 5 film holder. but my place is not to judge others.