Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Courting Condi

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 no consensus. Sandstein 07:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courting Condi

Courting Condi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Bromance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastian Doggart, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Faust: From Condi to Neo-Condi, it looks like this is a WP:Walled garden of WP:SOAP. I think this film fails WP:NFILM in spite of an attempt to make it look like it has achieved notoriety. Note that the sources are all very subpar and most are not reliable for the purposes of establishing notability. jps (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep appears to have garnered a couple of reviews and other coverage. Its not a lot (and certainly not enough for an article of this size) buts it may just pass.Slatersteven (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has won multiple awards (see movie's awards page on IMDb). Shearonink (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of these are "major" awards. jps (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Number 3 in NFO is not the only measurement of notability. And I said multiple awards. Shearonink (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What measurement says, "multiple awards"? jps (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This film does not meet our inclusion criteria for films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Film with more than enough good press mentions from reliable sources, but we really need to clean up the overly long resume-like content. May be somewhat promotional but looks inherently notable. Ambrosiawater (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Is this movie the same as the now-deleted "...Condi/Neo-Condi" and the "Bromance" films? The subject-matter sure sounds the same. Shearonink (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I've been able to find, there is some (perhaps even a great deal of?) recycled footage, but my understanding from IMDB that they were released as three separate films. jps (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The claim is that the film has won multiple awards and received notice in the press. The awards listed are at relatively minor film festivals or they are for minor awards at middle-of-the-road festivals. There is a reason that WP:NFILM asks for major awards as a criterion. There are many other films who won at those festivals who lack Wikipedia articles and rightly so. As for press mention, the best I can see is that there was some kerfuffle press over the screening of this film at various universities. But these publicity stunts don't really make the film itself that notable. Couple this with the obvious WP:SOAP problems and I remain unconvinced that this film deserves an article on Wikipedia as I don't see a way for us to actually write a neutral and decently-sourced standalone article on it. jps (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Actually, speedy delete as advocacy and attack page on Rice. There is a difference between a NPOV account of a notable film that is notable because of its advocacy, and an article about the film devoted to repeated and highlighting its advocacy. Rice is of course a public figure, and WP coverage of even the most negative comments on her is appropriate -- in its place, which is however not here. The place for brief coverage of the film is the artile on the filmamker, which should not have been nominated for deletion. We need to maintain some negree of balance. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curious as to why you believe that "highlighting its advocacy" is a title problem, rather than a content problem? Anarchangel (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored. Although DGG has expressed concerns about the POV of the article, the film itself is notable and clearly meets WP:NFILM. The Starring and Music by sections in the infobox clearly show a lot of blue links to notable actors and other notable people in the film industry, and so are the awards. Looks like a good keep candidate to me. Placing a POV tag on top would be good if you disagree with the film, but POV is clearly different from notability. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.