Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Courageous (film) (2nd nomination) - Wikipedia

Article Images

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 redirect to Sherwood Pictures. Consensus is that there should not be an article here, but that the title should remain a bluelink. Feel free to merge any sourced content from the article history. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

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

Strong delete - Having read WP:NF, this film seems to fail notability guidelines. The film currently is not even in the stages of casting, and there is little or no mainstream coverage (the only sources significantly covering this film are religious sources affiliated with it and intending to promote it, other than that, it only has trivial coverage, such as a page on BoxOfficeMojo with no significant details). Notability within a niche group does not equal mainstream coverage, and because the film is not even in the stages of casting, I would say that alone fails WP:NF. This article is essentially a promo for an upcoming film, and has no encyclopedic value.

The last AFD was only commented on by about 7 users (most of whom were active editors of the article), so I'd like to wait this AFD out and get a more objective consensus.

In addition, I'll be keeping my eye on this article for more promotional spam (such as trivia about it's number of "Facebook fans"). Thanks.SuaveArt (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, for reasons stated in the last discussion. First of all, you said, "the only sources covering this film are religious sources affiliated with it and intending to promote it"; this is incorrect. Please view the sources to WALB, KWTX-TV, WFXL, The Oklahoman and Box Office Mojo (this last one is about Fireproof, not Courageous, but relates to it). The "religious" sources are to some of the most famous and reliable news sites that deal with Christianity; The Christian Post, the Baptist Press, Christian Today and Charisma magazine (notice: they are all reliable sources with Wikipedia articles). None them are affiliated with the film, as you incorrectly said. The topic of failing WP:NF was dealed with in the last AfD, and I'll quote myself from there: "This is not a conventional film, and really isn't notable as a film and its principal photography. It is the centerpiece of Christian film, and had a worldwide announcement that anticipated thousands of people and brought dozens of media outlets to a church service. The film, although yes, it is still scripting and casting, is clearly notable (per WP:GNG)." I'm fine with the Facebook number of fans being removed; I only added it because a news article stated it. Strong Keep, and this AfD was unnecessary. American Eagle (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My response:

First of all, you said, "the only sources covering this film are religious sources affiliated with it and intending to promote it"; this is incorrect. Please view the sources to WALB, KWTX-TV, WFXL, The Oklahoman and Box Office Mojo (this last one is about Fireproof, not Courageous, but relates to it).

I said little to no mainstream coverage outside of religious sources. (The sources you sited above are extremely trivial, passing coverage). I've seen other articles on unreleased films with the same amount of coverage be deleted.

The "religious" sources are to some of the most famous and reliable news sites that deal with Christianity; The Christian Post, the Baptist Press, Christian Today and Charisma magazine (notice: they are all reliable sources with Wikipedia articles).

I never challenged the notability of those sources, but that's a separate issue. For example, just because TMZ (a notable source) mentions that Carrie Prejean has a pornographic video on the net doesn't mean that it deserves an article. I think a mention of this film in Sherwood Pictures is sufficient.

And like you said, these sources are notable "within the 'Christian' community". Since it has little real coverage outside of these sources, I'd say that it doesn't meet guidelines for general notability (if the article didn't include these Christian blogs as sources, it would only be 2 or 3 sentences long based on the mainstream coverage it gets).

None them are affiliated with the film, as you incorrectly said. The topic of failing WP:NF was dealed with in the last AfD, and I'll quote myself from there: "This is not a conventional film, and really isn't notable as a film and its principal photography. It is the centerpiece of Christian film, and had a worldwide announcement that anticipated thousands of people and brought dozens of media outlets to a church service.

That "explanation" is purely POV and inaccurate as well. "Centerpiece" of Christian film is simply your opinion of what the film will be (objectively, if I had to pick a film for that title, it would be Passion of the Christ or even The Ten Commandments). The same with "not a conventional film" (define "conventional" - that's purely opinion, especially since the film is [i]not even in the stages of casting[/i] and has not released any plot details!).

Your statement about the film's "worldwide announcement" and "dozens of media outlets" is also grossly exaggerated, seeing is it no mainstream coverage outside of religious sources except for passing mentions.

The film clearly fails WP:NF because it is not even in the stages of casting. If you're only counterpoint is "well I think it's going to be an 'unconventional film" then that isn't much of an argument, especially since no details about the film have even been released.--SuaveArt (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The film, although yes, it is still scripting and casting, is clearly notable (per WP:GNG)." I'm fine with the Facebook number of fans being removed; I only added it because a news article stated it.

I disagree, but that's what this AFD is for. No need for you to be defensive if you really think the film's worthy of inclusion. But the fact that you've insterted promotional content such as "facebook fans" into the article (which would easily be removed from any other film article) makes me think that you're more interested in promoting this film via Wikipedia than establishing true notability. When this film is released, if it does as well at the box office as Fireproof did, then maybe it will warrent an article. As is, I think not.--SuaveArt (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply to some of what you said above, but it's so cluttered I may get lost. For one, the Facebook fans source said, "The film already has more than 8,000 fans on a Facebook fan site." The source was to Nebraska City News-Press (which, I'll add, is another one of the mainstream sources that have reported on it), and is clearly a reliable source. Looking back, I'll agree that it's not very encyclopedic information (I'm fine with removing it), but I wasn't simply promoting the film. On another note, there are dozens more sources available (such as the Nebraska City News-Press; not a Christian website) which can be added. I may do that in the future (if I have time), but it appears there is enough to establish notability.

As far as "centerpiece of Christian film" and my POV go, I somewhat agree, yes. It is my opinion. You could make a case that The Ten Commandments/The Passion of the Christ are, but those were released 54 and 6 years ago, respectively. Ask any Christian filmmaker their opinion, or just look at news articles on it. Yes, it is opinional, but it is a widespread and general opinion. "Worldwide announcement" is somewhat exaggerated, but "dozens of media outlets" isn't. See this source that says, "More than 60 media outlets will be there in ten days when the Kendrick brothers announce their next venture." That isn't a Christian news site either. (Why was that information removed?) American Eagle (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources you mentioned (such as a passing mention in a local newspaper) don't assert general notability (as for the WALB source, it was out of date - it referred to an upcoming event that hadn't occurred at the time the WALB article was published - in order of that statement to be accurate, you'd need to find a source published after the event occured). And no, it is not a "wide-spread and general opinion" that this film is "the centerpiece of Christian film" (considering for one, that most Christians haven't even heard of it, and second, that statement is completely unverifiable, opinionated, and encyclopediac (especially considering that casting has not even begun for this film and the plot isn't even known). I'm starting to wonder if this film would have any notability at all if it was not for this unnecessary article.--SuaveArt (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A "passing mention in a local newspaper"? It is certainly not. It is a 25 paragraph (some short paragraphs) article solely about the film. That is not a "passing mention". Okay as far as WALB goes. Please go ask a Christian if they've heard of Fireproof or Facing the Giants. I'd guess that 9/10 American Christians have heard of/seen them both, and Courageous is the continuation of it. If you don't believe me, ask some. Regardless, I never wrote it in the article, so it doesn't have to be "encyclopediac" (why does my opinion need to be encyclopedic?) This has nothing to do with the film; it's just my opinion that it is the centerpiece. Reliable sources + verifiable information = notability. That's my view. American Eagle (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This film has already garnered plenty of publicity and notability, enough that people would probably look it up on Wikipedia. It'll have an article on here sooner or later anyway — there's no reason to kill the article only to have to rewrite it later, especially when there's useful information already in it. Filmcom (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're argument is "it'll have an article on here sooner or later anyway", then that just proves my point. --SuaveArt (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I'm saying that the solution to every problem on Wikipedia is not to delete content. It's to improve it. This film is notable enough to warrant an article; it has more information, external coverage, and sources than any article in Category:Film stubs. Filmcom (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NF clearly states that "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles". There are multiple reasons for this, including WP:Crystal, the difficulty of writing from a WP:NPOV when critics have not yet seen the film and responded, and inherent lack WP:VERIFIABILITY of information about pre-production films. An article on this can be created if the script is ever actually filmed. Locke9k (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sherwood Pictures. Some of the material from this article can be included there for the time being. As Locke9k points out, the film is not eligible for an article of its own per WP:NF because it hasn't started filming yet. Once filming is confirmed to have started, the article can be re-created. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. That it is a religious film is irrelevant. It does not meet the basic requirements for future films: principal photography has not been started--in fact, they don;t even have a cast. It might be notable , but it would be clearer to show that after it is released. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - While I can agree with the editors supporting "Keep", WP:NF undeniably states that films that have not started principal photography should not have their own article. However, since there are going to be people looking for information on Sherwood Pictures' next film and Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is to help people find the information they are looking for, I support a redirect to Sherwood Pictures. The information in the current article could be saved as a subpage to work off of when an actual article is necessary. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep; I agree with American Eagle Invmog (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - People will be searching for this film title here. Redirect it to Sherwood Pictures and reliable information in this article can be incorporated into the Sherwood Pictures article (if it already isn't). Seregain (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2010 (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.