Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Virgin Queen of St. Francis High (2nd nomination)

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. There's no doubt that this has reviews. The only question is whether the reviewers are "nationally known critics", and there's debate about that. I don't normally fret too much over a close NC/Keep call, and I tend to give more weight to comments added later in the discussion, so I'm going with Keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Virgin Queen of St. Francis High

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article about a film, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, every film is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it's technically verifiable as existing — the notability test for films requires evidence of importance, such as winning a notable film award and/or having published reviews in real media from professional film critics, but this has no such claims, and cites no notability-supporting references at all. Even the external link to Rotten Tomatoes (which is often one of the first lines of salvage for a poorly sourced film, since it lists published film reviews) lists zero reviews in this case, and the other two external links are just IMDb and an IMDb-clone directory, which are not evidence of notability — and I cannot find a single notability-boosting source on ProQuest or Google searches either. Even the purported sources that got this article kept the first time (but never actually got added to the article) failed to show up at all, and literally the only review I can actually find is from a non-notable blog which is so unreliable that it got National Film Board of Canada documentaries classified as B-movies the last time somebody tried to use it as a reference for Wikipedia content. As well, it bears note that earlier today, this got hit with a revert war over unverifiable claims that the director has recovered the copyright on the film and is retroactively renaming it back to his original working title, which escalated to that user getting editblocked within four hours for making legal threats — and while that's not a deletion rationale in and of itself, it does suggest conflict of interest intentions that are incompatible with the goals of Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Unable to Judge - as nom says, fails to meet NFILM. There are, in fact, a few reliable reviews that I found - radiotimes, allmovie, generation multiplex (that's sort of a reviewing large footnote) - however none of them passed SIGCOV. The COI issues aren't particularly relevant in this case, afaict. I also want to clarify that I checked for the sources mentioned in AfD1, and couldn't find any of them as even existing, let alone verifying they're suitable. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My system is being odd with the sources, and am unable to view them. However, individuals below have confirmed they are in fact there. As such I've struck my !vote as unable to accurately participate in the AfD Nosebagbear (talk) 10:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really? [1] I have no doubt the other sources mentioned in AFD 1 also exist.[2]--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That first source is coming up with a string of characters in the URL but I'm not getting anything. I've also tried it with a location VPN to check it was just a GDPR-wall issue. @Bearcat: or anyone else looking in, can you take a look at it? Nosebagbear (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The LATimes review is working for me and it is a full national review so that counts but Im not getting a link to the Variety review, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 02:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:NFO: "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" - does not meet WP:GNG: has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources" - Epinoia (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reviewed by Variety, Los Angeles Times ([3]), The Laser Video Disc Companion, as well as brief reviews in books such as the VideoHound guides, The Motion Picture Guide 1988 Annual, etc. --Michig (talk) 06:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject evidently failing WP:NFILM. Listings in list-everything publications, whether off- or online, mean nothing at all, in terms of notability. -The Gnome (talk) 08:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews in The Los Angeles Times, Variety, and The Laser Video Disc Companion are not 'listings in list-everything publications'. --Michig (talk) 09:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one proper review and it's the dismissive little piece in LA Times. (The one in Variety is inaccessible, supposed to be in a colletcion of yealr reviews.) Nothing else! All those so-called "reviews" in list-everything catalogues such as The Laser Video Disc Companion, the VideoHound, The Motion Picture Guide 1988 Annual, and so on, mean absolutely nothing in terms of notability. So, the subject film does not meet WP:NFILM and specifically its criteria #2 and #3 (it blatantly fails the rest). To wit, the film has not been widely distributed nor has it received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. And it has not been in at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. It's a joke, really. -The Gnome (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To the latter 3 !voters, have you been able to access the Variety review? Nosebagbear (talk)

I can't find the original review online, but it is included in the book Variety's Film Reviews 1987-1988. --Michig (talk) 09:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the multiple reliable sources identified by Michig so it passes both WP:GNG and criteria 1 of WP:NFILM as LA Times and Variety are nationally known reviews Atlantic306 (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFILM #1 demands that the film must have been widely distributed, which is has not, and must have received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics, which, again, it has not. The LA Times critic (in the sole review that's available for examination) is not a "nationally known critic." Not even a Wikipedia article on the man. -The Gnome (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A search on ProQuest indicates that the film was reviewed (scathingly) by Mick LaSalle in San Francisco Chronicle, December 9, 1987, page E4. Between that and the LA Times review by Michael Wilmington, I feel there is enough here. Wilmington was a well-known critic,[4] writing for a major publication. Haukur (talk) 10:16, 29 August 2019 (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.