Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Courageous (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Courageous (film)

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

Fails our guidelines for notability of films at WP:NF "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles" - and even those films don't necessarily meet the rest of the guideline: "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines". Dougweller (talk) 09:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "The script for Courageous is still be written", so it fails WP:NFF. JohnCD (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep – This film is getting dozens of Google News hits every day. 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 servive. (Literally, the film has 5,000 Facebook fans overnight.) The film, although yes, it is still scripting and casting, is clearly notable (per WP:GNG), and I've added yet another source. American Eagle (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: More sources added. American Eagle (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Secular notability is still notability. Nice work to User:American Eagle for the additional sources which address the concerns toward future films posed by WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question -- Fox News is claimed as a source, but the actual source is a local website in Georgia which the author of the piece reference works, is this being claimed as evidence of notability? Dougweller (talk) 06:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've edited that out. If you look on the WFXL article, its logo says, "Fox 31 News", which is why I put it as that. "WFXL" is probably more accurate though, so I've changed it. (The older version wasn't really incorrect, as it is a Fox News affiliate.) WFXL is a reliable source, as are WALB and KWTX-TV (these, I assume, were some of the media representatives at the announcement). American Eagle (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Thanks - I'd say it's still pretty trivial however. Dougweller (talk) 06:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Plenty of reliable sources cited. As American Eagle has stated above, after the announcement, this film has rapidly become well-known, especially in the Christian film audience. Filmcom (talk) 12:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - For several reasons. #1 - Dozens of reliable sources about the film with more being added every day. #2 - This entry will just become a point of contention for those who want it deleted vs. those who want it kept and, as it will need an entry later on anyway, it doesn't make a lot of sense to delete it now. #3 - The WP:IGNORE policy. This entry improves Wikipedia, so it's quite alright to ignore WP:NF, which is just a guideline. Seregain (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I heard about this film today, and soon checked to see if there was a Wikipedia entry. If there was, I assumed that it should be deleted as not be notable yet. However, the film has received a reasonable amount of media coverage, more than I was aware of. Even if the plot and such are still in production, and thus usually considered too future and unconfirmed for an article, the RS coverage sways me to support keeping the article. JamieS93 00:31, 20 November 2009 (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.