Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Ballers

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Despite a number of comments that fail to cite any relevant policy, consensus is clearly that the subject is sufficiently covered in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Ballers[edit]

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

Lady Ballers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. The sources available on this consist of a few anti-trans outlets rallying for the movie's message, and a few pro-trans outlets rallying against it. In all this, there is remarkably little coverage of the film itself, which has received no professional reviews – not that surprising given that it's self-distributed. In addition to the sources already in the article, none of which are WP:GENREL, I found the following:

  • The Washington Times, mostly a quote-farm of people involved in the production, with only a few sentences about the film itself, questionable source.
  • LGBTQ Nation, only a few sentences providing secondary coverage of the film, not significant coverage.
  • PinkNews, not significant coverage about the film, but a pretty good summary of my argument here: Aside from the rabid excitement from transphobic commentators, the response to the Lady Ballers trailer so far has been rather underwhelming.
  • Out, this stays maybe the most focused on the subject, but is still not significant coverage and is only based on the trailer; nobody seems to have reviewed the actual film. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 13:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Conservatism, and Sexuality and gender. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 13:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep: Professional movie critic reviews are not necessary for a film (or anything else) to be notable. I'm not sure why the proposer of this deletion is using such a criteria when judging the sources. 2001:4998:EF60:1B:0:0:0:1030 (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep: A quick look at User:Maddy from Celeste's profile will all make sense as to why they nominated this article for deletion. Casint (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: independent coverage by Newsweek tipped the notability scale for me, despite them misspelling the title. Owen× ☎ 13:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Newsweek is hardly the most reliable source either, and I don't think that really adds much either. Most of it is just quoting user-generated reviews and social media, with a few sentences of actual secondary coverage. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 14:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Independent coverage include:
  1. Decider
  2. Voz (Pt)
  3. Nashville Scene
  4. [1]
  5. YahooNews
  6. [2]
  7. [3]
  8. [4]
  9. [5]
So that the article can be improved and expanded. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Decider (website) is owned by WP:NYPOST
  2. I don't see how this is significant coverage. A sentence or two about the film, and a bunch of social media quotes.
  3. This looks ok, but really only tells us there were protestors at some of the filmings, and that the uni canceled.
  4. Blog, but by what seems like a serious critic so probably ok.
  5. Pride.com doesn't look like enough of an RS, and the author doesn't appear to be a professional critic.
  6. This doesn't seem like a reliable source, and it's another one of those articles with little substance but many twitter quotes.
  7. Looks like a blog, author seems to be only known for this blog.
  8. This is anything but RS.
  9. Blog by a serious critic, which would be okay, but it's also only based on the trailer and not as complete as I'd wish
As I see it, we have some bad sources, some more mediocre ones, and one or two blog posts by actual critics. So far, I'm not convinced that this film is actually notable. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Almost TOOSOON, although Rotten Tomatoes as zero ratings from critics, might have to wait a bit to see if any pick up the story. Oaktree b (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like it just came out yesterday, so I would concur with waiting for more coverage. Djkauffman (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's only streaming on the Daily Wire plus service and there are no reviews or any sort of discussion outside of the few sites mentioned. People don't seem to care about the film, no one is discussing it. Oaktree b (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But I'm fine letting the AfD discussion run for a week or so, to see if any media we consider RS picks up the story (I have my doubts, based on the lack of anything at this point, but happy to be proven wrong). Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. Too soon, move to WP:DRAFTSPACE. -- 109.77.193.78 (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify : At least for now, there doesn't appear to be enough RS for a standalone article, but considering the movie just came out it seems reasonable to believe additional coverage will emerge. Let'srun (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [reply]
    • Changing to Keep now as the film now has enough GNG level coverage. WP:HEY applies. Let'srun (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above getting coverage (supportive and dismissive) in WP:RS as listed above, Ted Cruz cameo lends some notability. A strange deletion nomination. --24.125.98.89 (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the coverage noted above already establishes notability, and no doubt more coverage will appear, since this is culture-war catnip. Its official release date was yesterday.PopePompus (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems like the sources above, especially Newsweek, definitely makes this a notable enough film for an article. CharlesBluth (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep well, Newsweek makes it notable enough but also there is enough celebrities and politicians playing in the movie that on its own it should be notable - Peterson, Cruz, Shapiro, Candace Owens are in the movie - doesn't that add to notability? I mean, Wikipedia reports on everything "well-known people" do so how is this not OK? Ptok-Bentoniczny (talk) 05:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, i easily found two more sources and added them. material from LGBTQ magazine Out magazine as well as The Washington Times. Took 5 minutes. I am sure we could add even more if we really work at it. this is an easy keep nomination. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are those the ones I listed in my nomination? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also a fairly lengthy positive review has appeared in the Washington Free Beacon ( https://freebeacon.com/culture/this-movie-will-make-you-rethink-everything-you-ever-learned-about-women-with-balls/ ) PopePompus (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also reviewed on msn.com: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/stream-it-or-skip-it-lady-ballers-on-dailywire-in-which-far-right-guys-try-to-dunk-on-trans-athletes/ar-AA1kS1hk PopePompus (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The MSN is a reprint from Decider, which is likely not a RS. It's not listed in our Movie notability sources, nor in the general list we maintain. Oaktree b (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The review happens to be published at Decider but John Serba is a freelance film critic who writes for various publications. I do not understand why a particular publication means that a film review, a clearly attributed opinion (WP:RSOPINION) of a specific individual should be reflexively excluded. -- 109.76.200.233 (talk) 04:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • +1. Yes, this is hosted by WordPress but Roger Moore's Movie Nation is a very notable film review website by an established critic and they just published a proper in-depth serious review. Even if some of the sources listed are subject to debate (rightly so or not), all in all, there are now more than enough reliable independent sources to establish the notability of a film according to WP. You can add this if you want international sources about the film.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have my doubts about the Movie Nation website, they don't have it listed in our movie resources page for notable sources. [6] Oaktree b (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all reliable sources are listed there. And apparently you concur it is reliable, below, am I right? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strong KeepThe film's cast is packed with notable individuals, many of whom already have extensive wikipedia pages. A standing US Senator??? Freakin' Jordan Peterson, arguably the most influential human currently on earth??? It is very bizarre to nominate this article for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.17.135 (talk) 02:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Influential to only a few people, Peterson was largely derided for complaining about having to take social media training here and turning it into a story. Oaktree b (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To quote, there's no such thing as bad publicity. If he's "largely derided" this means that people at least know who he is. A widely known person makes it notable, regardless of the perception people have of that person. There are smaller Youtubers with wiki pages who are known less than he is. Godaistudios (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Peterson has an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    " a few people" He has 4.5 million X followrs 2607:FEA8:6C64:4300:591F:985E:86F4:2A88 (talk) 11:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    most of which could be bots, not useful for notability Oaktree b (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Swift probably all bots too. Delete her! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadhockey (talk • contribs) 21:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Looks like a legitimate movie not too different from many 90s comedies. Any deletion would appear to be agenda driven. roadhockey
  • Keep Not a surprising nom, but at this point, it seems like a WP:SNOWCLOSE and WP:SK may be in order. There is more than enough RS coverage and cultural interest for this article to exist on Wikipedia. ~ Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The article could probably use some more sources, but there seems to be just enough to qualify this page for its own article per WP:GNG. At the very least, I would not be against draftifying it. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's been out for a few days, and still zero mentions in the big daily press/tv things. Does not appear notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Christian Toto and Roger Moore have reviews listed on Rotten Tomatoes, here's the link: [7] Oaktree b (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a movie on a streaming service. Are we going to start picking and choosing which streaming services are notable? It has famous people in it, like Ted Cruz and Jordan Peterson and Riley Gaines. The Critical Drinker reviewed it. Others will doubtless review it, if reviews are what make a movie notable. RussNelson (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It looks lame and I probably won't see it, but it's hilarious watching the Wikipedia Usual Suspects fuming over it. Dr Clyde Crashcup (talk) 02:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Permission to strike this vote? This user obviously has no intention to add anything to the discussion. Industrial Insect (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He added a keep. His vote stays in.70.55.17.135 (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    AfD is not a vote Industrial Insect (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, fuming. Dr Clyde Crashcup (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lacking adequate sources or coverage does not mean that a film is not notable nor that it doesn't belong on the site. It was notable enough that I saw it featured in a review by The Critical Drinker on YouTube... And that when I went on to suggest it to friends, multiple others had already heard of, and seen it before I had. And though I'm on the opposite side as what was taken on the film I think it is something that nearly everyone I know could watch and find humor in. There is no reason that this page should not exist / should be deleted. There may be a problem with content on the page, but there should definitely be an article covering this film just as there would be for any other film. Case and point... After watching the film, I looked to Wikipedia to see if I could find how much was spent for the budget of this film, like I would for many others. Heimerslinger (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Lacking adequate sources or coverage does not mean that a film is not notable nor that it doesn't belong on the site." What? That is literally the notability guideline for our entire website! I like critical drinker, but he is not any indication of notability. Read the General Notability Guidline. Industrial Insect (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As a new user I think I'm struggling to articulate my point with this a bit.
    If I were to go search for Lady Ballers, I'll find articles discussing the film from various sources, of which, I can't really tell which ones would be appropriate for Wikipedia or not.
    Ex. Out.com , newsweek.com, washingtontimes.com, them.us, freebeacon.com, imdb.com, a number of youtube videos / channels, MSN, Yahoo, Decider, The Daily Beast, Daily Express, etc.
    To the average person, this is a film that does in fact exist and is being discussed among a fairly significant number of people.
    The idea that, as some discussion above would imply, there should not be an article for it simply because no film critic has decided to cover it (or, rather, that a large number may be actively deciding not to) seems ridiculous to me.
    I think that there is a very valid issue in that there may be issues with how much content may currently be written within the article with a reliable, verifiable source behind it.
    But I think the article itself should exist. There are no doubt a number of people who will find this page significant and useful; and there are, at a minimum, a set of details that could be included on it, such as the plot, the cast, date of release, etc. Heimerslinger (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:ITSUSEFUL. Something being useful is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion. Reliable sources/Perennial sources should answer your question. YouTube videos are not (usually) considered reliable sources because they are not watched over by an editorial team, no matter how good their content may be. Newsweek post 2013 is not considered reliable. IMDB is not considered reliable due to being user generated content. Washington Times is considered generally reliable, but with a few instances of unreliable content. Yahoo is considered reliable. The Daily Beast is considered to be biased, however there is no general consensus. Daily express is a tabloid. Do not use it. I am unaware of the reliability of the other sources, however I appreciate you trying to help the discussion. Industrial Insect (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgot to add, movie reviews are not the only thing that contributes to notability. Any reliable source that gives significant coverage to the topic is allowed. Industrial Insect (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would agree with the above commentator that a WP:SNOWCLOSE and WP:SK are in order. There is adequate RS coverage, cultural interest is apparent, just search on google LTL-GA (talk) 05:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's clear the intent of the deletion is to try to censor the movie. 73.133.252.186 (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not strawman the arguments of editors you disagree with. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you want a strawman is? The idea of censorship is a legit point. 71.121.219.230 (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No I think the fact that no one is streaming it is more censoring than this vote. I wouldn't have known about it if it wasn't for this process. Oaktree b (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting to note is that the cast of the movie there are at least a dozen people who are notable enough here in this encyclopedia to have a biography. The just the cameo appearance of Ted Cruz has caused some stir on some of the news sites [8]. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 16:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This is obviously notable, if not as a great film (doesn't seem to be), as an element in contemporary American politics. Even raising it for deletion feels a bit ridiculous, given that apparently it hadn't even premiered when the deletion was raised. While "this is obviously an attempt at censoring the film" may be a bit exaggerated (how would that even work?), the idea certainly smacks of something in that direction: WTF else would the reason be for such a rush? And "not notable" sure seems like a rather flimsy pretext: I only came here to look it up because it was talked about on the Internet (no, not by fans of Shapiro or the Daily Wire). As an example of how skewed the discussion has become by being so overly hasty: Someone above tried to use "But it has no reviews by professional critics on Rotten Tomatoes!" as proof of its non-notability. Yeah, well, that was then -- a couple of days ago, perhaps before the premiere. Now it has four. The mere existence of this deletion discussion does smack of precisely that "woke" crusading the Right loves to accuse "hipster SJW Wikipedians" of. Way to live up to their expectations. CRConrad (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's their issue to deal with, we aren't here to censor things. Oaktree b (talk) 12:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, exactly: We're here to write up objective knowledge on somewhat notable things. Which this is.
    "Our" -- Wikipedia's -- issue is that of credibility. Looking as if we're "here to censor things" hurts that. CRConrad (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is clear that this AfD was premature. Since this film didn't come from a Hollywood studio, the mainstream coverage took a little longer to come out, but it appears to have been covered now. --rogerd (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is clearly a film with some cultural significance, at least significant enough to be on Wikipedia. A number of major news outlets have written articles on it, and a sitting US Senator is in it for Pete's sake! The arguments against it in this discussion mostly seem to center around it not having many major reviews yet, but many other movies on Wikipedia don't have the kind of reviews, coverage, or references that people proposing to delete this article say are needed (some examples: 12 Desperate Hours, House of Bones, How to Boil a Frog, trust me there are many, MANY, more). This is an alternative media film on an alternative media platform that just came out about a week ago. Of course not all mainstream outlets have covered it yet! But that doesn't make it insignificant, and more than a few mainstream outlets HAVE covered it at this point. It is MORE THAN A LITTLE suspicious that this PARTICULAR film article is being nominated for deletion while so many other film articles that are less significant and with less coverage are left up without challenge. I believe there is a distinct possibility that the nomination was made with another agenda in mind given that the film is more than a little controversial. It should not go unnoticed that the user who nominated this article is clearly someone who would likely not want such a film was made. I am not making a commentary on whether the movie or article are good, I doubt I would like the movie and the article clearly needs a better plot summary at least. I am simply saying that it is clear that this article should NOT be deleted and that if Wikipedia wishes to be seen as somewhat neutral and independent, agenda driven removal of articles, like I believe this nomination may be, should not be tolerated.
136.62.1.224 (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article states: "The conservative pundits at the Daily Wire predicted that their first feature-length comedy, “Lady Ballers,” would trigger the left, and they weren’t wrong. Transgender advocates sounded the alarm as the film’s release approached, accusing the movie of seeking to “mock trans women and girls who are fighting for the right to participate in sports as their gender,” as LGBTQ Nation put it.nThat, of course, is the point of “Lady Ballers,” the story of a has-been men’s basketball coach who convinces the players on his former high school championship team to identify as female so that they can dominate multiple women’s sports."
The article states: "The far-right and viciously anti-trans Daily Wire has announced its first feature-length comedy film written to mock trans women and girls who are fighting for the right to participate in sports as their gender. A trailer for the film entitled Lady Ballers depicts a group of cisgender men deciding to pretend to be trans women and join a women’s basketball league as one team with the intent of dominating the sport."
The article states: "The premise of Lady Ballers seems to be that any out-of-shape 50-year-old white man is, by nature of being a man, a better athlete than any woman could ever hope to be. You see, women are just factually bad at sports, this movie states. It follows a high school basketball coach who gets his old team of guys who peaked in high school together to dominate a women’s basketball league and other women’s sports. It takes the false idea that anywhere at any time a cis man can claim he is a woman and enter any women’s sporting event. But the fun doesn’t stop there. It goes even further, saying that when cis men do that, they become unstoppable forces on the field."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lady Ballers to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

contribs) 16:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the film is currently the number one streaming/downloaded movie in the US right now. By the way, the nomination appears to be in bad faith as the nominator, according to their user page, is an activist for the ideology ridiculed and lampooned by this movie. 152.130.15.16 (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Imagine my shock at that, I never would have guessed (sarcasm). I think an admin should close this poll as it's been an entire week and only two users have voted to delete. TJD2 (talk) 07:09, 9 December 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lady_Ballers&oldid=1199258966"